Ziek Ziek Ziekeddy Gynephile
By Sophia Siedlberg
28 April 2008
Dr. Westenfelder has inspired me to start an award scheme. I will call it the Westenfelder Quackery award. And every month OII could award this to whatever doctor really comes out with the usual dumb panic-stricken claptrap, but in the best style. We have had notable candidates already: "Girls will be girls (Or Else)" (Perrin White), "The Doctors felt that anything other than DSD was too de-pathologizing" (Alice Dreger), "They are best, sorry, "especially, suited for prostitution" (J Michael Bailey).
So why have I decided that this award be named after Dr Westenfelder? Of Krankenhaus Maria-Hilf, Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Krefeld. Because He has come out with an absolute corker. And here it is:
"In 5-alpha deficiency, early gonadectomy and feminization are not recommended since gyneophile behavior can be expected. Late or non-correction is rejected by the majority of psychiatrists. Many problems remain unclear and controversial due to lack of knowledge."
Ok, so Dr. Martin Westenfelder is talking about not doing surgery on intersex patients. Oh how wonderful, but there is a catch. "They may grow up being lesbians" and "must be made men" (So surgery is still involved then). I see we are in Der Eigene territory again. Oh and what is singled out for this wonderful male privilege. Yes, you guessed it. People with 5 alpha. I find that particularly irritating. I am not sure what it is with psychiatrists and 5 alpha. Do they have dreams of surgeons procuring a Bolivar or Cohiba sized penis on an 18 month old child. Well a cigar is a cigar, the end result is more, errm Hamlet, and mangled at that. To put it bluntly Dr Westenfelder is not telling you about the surgery, yes I said surgery, in his own country, that is termed "A hypospadias repair" or "Treating a hernia" but often involves the ripping out of the occasional uterus while no one is looking.
You can see how this strange logic works, when you consider that most papers on 5 alpha describe a vagina and the little girl grows up into macho manhood with a 30 foot long penis that would make a spammer jealous. Well this is evidently a bit fictional if Dr. Westenfelder considers masculinization of a "hypospadias" to be needed. There would not be one right? But a clitoris and vagina right? Westenfelder ends his comment with:
"In the future they can only be solved through cooperation, documentation, and observation of these individuals over their lifetime."
Well there is another lie, not coming from Westenfelder himself. But how often is that parroted when discussing 5 alpha? As someone with 5 alpha, my experience has been that such statements are little more than hot air. And the "Make ‘em male" line of reasoning is nothing new either. As it happens, this is what I was subjected to. I have written it out enough times. I really cannot help but see something abusive behind all this. Before 1990 the records of sex assignation did not read like a uniform rush to feminize every child. Dr. John Money had a blanket policy of feminization but everywhere else it was more uncertain, and in the Middle East and various religious countries masculinization was and still is more common. Perhaps my argument sounds a little twisted when I say that most of the time, male assignation is motivated by a need to cause the child harm, and make them regret they were ever born, having been through it myself. However, I am entitled to say that. Dr Westenfelder is from what I have been reading either a surgeon or a psychiatrist. Most probably a psychiatrist given the "Dr" title, and someone whom I regard as a threat. It is simple Pavlovian logic. I was assigned "male" given a life of hell, and when I finally had the damage undone as best it could be, I read these people in the media going "Man, man, man, man, Srebrenica, hahaha". All they are achieving by all this is to make themselves objects of hatred; I have said that before as well. I have also said they will do it to the wrong child and that child could grow into an autandrophobe and hunt the doctors down.
My feelings towards the "Expert" who decreed I should be "male" when I was a child are homicidal, literally. I have to keep that anger under control; I have had to be kept well away from medical professionals who started harping on about chromosomes and "make ‘em male" because I would have killed them at one time. I am not sure the Dr. Westenfelder quite understands what he is dealing with. I am not saying everyone born with an intersex variation or even 5 alpha would have the negative reaction towards the "masculine" I have, but again and again I say that one day they will do it to someone else who is not as able to restrain their anger.
My actual answer is to use this "Westenfelder award" and every quack who comes out with arbitrary sex assignment, and does it for dumb reasons like "they may grow up gay" or "they may grow up lesbian" will get the award. You could consider this as an exercise is psychology, a sort of special list calling attention to those who are causing great harm to innocent children and if children could grow up gynephiles, they could also grow up to be angry autoandrophobes.
Let's see if the doctors are so confident. Do the Doctors feel comfortable being listed when that list could easily be read by someone in the future who is very angry? I mean the Doctors usually still go in for covering their tracks so angry patients cannot trace them. What Am I saying? Well, are the doctors really so confident about the eventual outcome of their actions? You see I am concerned about the children. So much so I am quite happy to maintain a list of Doctors who have caused them harm. Do the doctors feel so confident with such a list that could guide future victims about whom to sue?
Again feel free to talk to us. I am sure we can all come to a more mutual understanding.
A letter to America
by Sophia Siedlberg
Hello America! How are you today? You are probably wondering what someone in the UK is doing writing a letter in effect to an entire nation. Well, it goes like this, have you, the average American man or woman, ever wondered why when you travel abroad you are disliked, distrusted or on some occasions even hated? I am not talking about some Islamic countries either, but often in countries that are supposed to be your closest allies, such as here in the UK.
Well, here is the explanation that may help because I can assure you I am not writing out of hostility. I admit there was a time a few years ago when I followed the crowd and said “Americans are dumb. They just got Bush as their president”. But then I thought that instead of simply saying that, why not explain why such a sentiment came about? Today, living in the UK which is a country that has stood by you very often in recent years, has committed troops to fight your wars and even faced bombs, essentially for you, the concept of “Anglo American” relations seems, at best, to feel a little one way. I will give you a personal example. In the US there is a clique of medical professionals whom I have written about very often, that have not only decided what clinical guidelines and treatment protocols should apply in every state in the US but also here, in the UK, and those policies are detrimental to the health care I receive and ultimately to my health.
I will not hide what my health issues are. I was born “intersexed”, that is “of no clear anatomical sex by the currently defined medical standards”. There is nothing politically correct about me, and I am not really a member of the LBGT lobby. I am just an individual with a medical condition that is a bit unusual; I have no “Gender identity issues”. All I really want is just to lead my life as best I can and that is that. It was an accident of birth and nothing I should be made to feel guilty about.
However, the medical professionals who operate from the “Clarke-Northwestern” school of medical opinion over in the USA have decided that I had no right being born. They don’t say it outright and it is not aimed at me personally, but they basically assert that there is only “pure” male and “pure” female. I am angry about this because I am not an American citizen, and yet it would seem that people who would be born with health issues like mine would probably not be born or if we are, we would be subjected to surgical intervention, secrecy and shame, all because of American sensitivities? And American morality?
Look at yourselves. At the time I write this, there is an African American and a middle class White Woman doing battle to become a presidential candidate. And listen to what is being said, from the outside, from “Not in America”. Do you know what journalists outside the US are saying? “The Americans are having a bit of a problem at the moment with the race issue and the gender issue”. America looks like a country of bigots presenting token candidates for the Democratic Party. I mean look at how quickly the issue of the Republican candidate was settled. No controversy or wringing of hands there.
In some countries, like the Islamic countries, you are compared to Nazis. I think that is unfair but from where I am sitting, in all honesty there is little smoke without fire. Take the issue of Homosexuality and Abortion. These are hot button topics Americans are stereotyped over. Now is it not interesting that some Americans, usually of the “Religious right”, would gladly kill a medical professional who carries out abortions, unless of course there is some test that can determine whether or not the unborn child may grow up to be gay. As it happens that is a bit of a joke outside the US, like the aborting of children with many other “Defects” (including those like mine, intersex conditions) is “fine”, and now I hear some (The Clarke Northwestern) talking of eradicating gay fetuses as well.
Any sort of non conformity to some physical or social ideal is met with abortion, with the intent to eradicate and the American Right wing and neo-conservative movements are funding this because they have been lied to. They are also paying doctors to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. Is it any wonder an American Accent usually gets met with such derision and hatred, even in countries where people have laid their lives on the line defending American interests.
I am not saying the Clarke Nothwestern are solely responsible for the hatred (sometimes visceral hatred) felt towards America, but they are one example of what the problem really is. Let me illustrate the point with how the average American tourist looks through the eyes of your typical Brit. “Overweight, Oversexed and Over here” would be one commonly used phrase. “Bloated, superficial bully who wants to rule the world with an iron fist and Mc Donald’s” is another. I have no doubt you see the British as prudish, anally retentive and all talking like Dick Van Dyke in the Mary Poppins Movie. There is a difference; on the one side there is a sense that “Those over there” are quaint and probably a bit dim. On the other side there is a sense of real anger, at having our hospitality abused and at having your values imposed on us, of sensing that whatever happens, the Americans will always regard the rest of the world (and in this case the UK) as mere second rate of this planet.
And I am talking about people who traditionally are your allies, not your sworn enemies.
Perhaps you need to take a close collective look at yourselves. I am not saying look at the fat bully stereotype. I am saying stop and think. Stop taking other nations for granted. Stop imposing your rules on their day to day lives, and yes stop having the likes of the Clarke Northwestern (Among others) represent you on the international stage, making you look like a bunch of warmongering, genocidal, dictatorial maniacs. I am not anti American, as it happens the organization I am speaking to you from is an international organization (Which qualifies me to say what I am saying) which has a very large American contingent. In a way OII is a microcosm of the international problem you Americans have to be dealing with. OII represents international opinion, unlike say ISNA which represents American opinion. In OII there is a common and consistent thread, even among the American membership that America-centric organizations like ISNA and the Clarke Northwestern are a symbol of American arrogance on the international stage. In a way similar to some large companies like Microsoft or Coca Cola or McDonalds.
Now, you are not unwelcome. In the UK I can buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, buy a big Mac and swig it down with a can of Coke. But when I see these things as a product of a nation that would see people like me killed before they are born, along with the disabled and LGBT folks. I see symbols of an invader, not a friend. That is your problem America. Before you alienate yourselves from the rest of the planet, sit back and think what is it you are doing wrong. Take it as advice from an honest friend and remember I am still typing this on Microsoft Word, for now.
A letter to America: A Response
From Peter Trinkl, Board President, Bodies Like Ours
You say that you are writing a letter to an entire nation. An issue that you raise is that American men and women traveling abroad are often “disliked, distrusted, or on some occasions even hated”. I have never traveled to Europe, so I can only take your word for it. I suspect that American travelers are pretty much like travelers everywhere, often resented for having the time and money to travel. When some Americans travel the world, I suspect that there is often distrust based upon a past history of slavery and colonialism. In the near future, the majority of Americans will not come from Europe. Progress is being made towards America becoming a modern multi-cultural and diverse society.
You speak of the harmful effects of the relationship between the medical profession in the United States and the medical profession in the United Kingdom. I assume that you are referring to the cultural dominance of medical treatment protocols for intersex children put forward by advocates for the new DSD nomenclature (Disorders of Sex Development). It is most unfortunate that the treatment guidelines now being put forward are making their way into the United Kingdom. That is terrible news. I know that one document, a Chicago Consensus Statement, that still recommends involuntary infant genital surgery in cases of highly virilized CAH children.
I believe that we are in a time of change, where intersex people are speaking out about our own experiences, connecting with other intersex people, and demanding recognition as human beings. You say that “All I really want is just to lead my life as best I can and that is that”. I know that intersex children should not be made to feel guilty. But unfortunately, I think that the trauma is very deep. From what I know, I don't think that my parents were as abusive as your parents. However, I think that my parents were never able to really bond with me, which led to a lifelong estrangement. Being born intersex is an accident of birth, but it is an accident that lasts for a lifetime.
You say “However, the medical professionals who operate from the Clarke-Northwestern school of medical opinion over the USA have decided that I had no right being born. They don't say it outright and it is not aimed at me personally, but they basically assert that there is only ‘pure’ male and ‘pure’ female.” I agree with you on this one. From J. Michael Bailey saying that he has no objections to the possibility of parents aborting gay fetuses to the recent attack on the transsexual community under the guise of an academic discussion of the Female Essence Narrative, it is clear that some people are, at the minimum, not very good listeners, and at worst, well..... worse. I think that it is very damning, that time and time again, the subjects of Bailey's research disagree with his interpretations of their interviews. And now Alice Dreger has a Guggenheim. I think that it is great that Alice got a Guggenheim, but I am disturbed that she will use the funds to continue the flimsy arguments first advanced in her article in defense of Bailey. She can do better than that. Nearly every day, the thought crosses my mind: “Why doesn't Alice pick on someone her own size?” I hope that I don't offend intersex and transsexual people with these thoughts, because I am sure that there are many strong voices out there. But I believe that she should stick closer to personal experiences, such as deconstructing the Female Essence Narrative among so-called bio-females.
I agree that much of the work of the Clarke Northwestern group is closely related to past eugenics movements in the United States, even if it might not be explicitly stated and they only continue the work in spirit. Normalization is still the watchword in the treatment of intersex children. If it is not surgical or hormonal normalization, it is psychiatric normalization. I see the genetic identification of intersex conditions and genetic counseling towards promoting so-called healthy and well adjusted children as a growth industry. The search for a so-called gay gene continues.
Human Rights should not be confined by national boundaries. I am appalled that the United States included an exemption for its own practices of infant genital surgery on intersex children from international agreements condemning female genital mutilation. I am appalled that in the United States, normalizing infant genital surgeries are still performed on an involuntary basis on intersex children roughly five times a day. I am appalled that not a single state in the United States has banned involuntary infant genital surgeries performed before a child has a chance to grow up and make their own choices about their body.
But there is some progress in the United States. I am typing this using OpenOffice Writer rather than Microsoft Word.
Zucker? Don’t you wish you were Zucker?
By Sophia Siedlberg.
12 May 2008
I sometimes find Kenneth Zucker to be a real joke when it comes to his somewhat bizarre logic. This has got to be the best corker yet. Apparently he has posed the question "What would happen if a black child was presented to him wanting to be white?"
Zucker says of this question:
"I was influenced by a remark Richard Pleak made in a 1999 essay, in which he wrote that the notion that "attempting to change children's gender identity for [the purpose of reducing social ostracism] seems as ethically repellant as bleaching black children's skin in order to improve their social life among white children" (p. 14). I thought about his argument and decided that it could be flipped."
So he flipped the argument thus:
"This is an interesting argument, but I believe that there are a number of problems with the analysis. I am not aware of any contemporary clinician who would advocate "bleaching" for a Black child (or adult) who requests it. Indeed, there is a clinical and sociological literature that considers the cultural context of the "bleaching syndrome" vis-a-vis racism and prejudice (see, e.g., Hall, 1992, 1995). Interestingly, there is an older clinical literature on young Black children who want to be White (Brody, 1963)–what might be termed "ethnic identity disorder" and there are, in my view, clear parallels to GID. Brody's analysis led him to conclude that the proximal etiology was in the mother's "deliberate but unwitting indoctrination" of racial identity conflict in her son because of her own negative experiences as a Black person. Presumably, the treatment goal would not be to endorse the Black child's wish to be White, but rather to treat the underlying factors that have led the child to believe that his life would be better as a White person. As an aside, there is also a clinical literature on the relation between distorted ethnic identity (e.g., a Black person's claim that he was actually born White, but then transformed) and psychosis (see Bhugra, 2001; Levy, Jones, & Olin, 1992). Of course, in this situation, the treatment is aimed at targeting the underlying psychosis and not the symptom."
The problem is that Zucker just jumps to the word "Psychosis" but he misses an interesting point. You see, we can take the analogy Zucker is using to its logical conclusion. When Brody came up with the original commentary, you may find that in the US (especially the deep south), there was a system of Apartheid (sorry "Segregation") and there were eugenicists (usually White eugenicists) running around wearing pointy hats and sheets, wielding burning crosses and dead cats, claiming to be experts on race and saying that Black people were "inferior". Given that there were hangings, shootings and a few African Americans being pulled by a tow rope across gravel, it is hardly surprising some would have thought occasionally "It would be easier if I were white!", because self hatred was what the whites intended. The notion of being made to hate who you are so much you want to be something else, or someone else is an interesting one, because that idea did not come from the African American communities, it came from the middle class whites.
What I am saying is that in Brody's time it was actually a bit dangerous to say anything other than "The mother's indoctrination" for two reasons. The first was that Black people had a strong sense of community, wanting to turn white would have been seen as treacherous. The middle class white people knew this, which is why in some photographs of the time you see some of the local Klanners holding up banners reading "Don't you wish you were white!". For someone to wish they were white was to submit to white brutality.
This is where Zucker is well and truly screwed because today we find the target of hostility would be aimed at anyone who is called "Transgendered" and as "Transgender" is a blanket term meaning "Transitional" or "In an intermediate" state this as much a characteristic as the color of someone's skin. You see Zucker has got this upside down, black people were given grief because of their having the characteristic of black skin, today someone called "Transgendered" by society gets grief because of the characteristic of either transitioning from one sex to the other or being in an intermediate state. (I will stress that "Transgender" is a broad brush term that is not accepted by all to whom it is applied, by the likes of Zucker).
I have seen the situation where "Regretters" (People who regret having changed sex, after undergoing treatment for transsexualism) are regarded almost as "Treacherous" by many transsexual folk, and where does Zucker fit in? Well, he likes "Regretters". They would be people who have submitted to his brutality.
But where Zucker really shoots himself in the foot is how he would regard intersex people. You see for Zucker the "ideal outcome" would be for someone who was born (Note the word "Born") intersexed to "integrate fully as one or the other sex". He has said that himself before now. The point is the characteristic that makes an intersexed person "intersexed" is self explanatory, as self explanatory as the words "Black" and "Skinned". You see Zucker has painted himself into a corner because he wants to make intersex people "normal" and with the use of surgery and hormones he would seek to do this. He is no different to the Klanners with those "Don't you wish you were white" placards. He simply does not understand the dynamic because he is not a member of a targeted minority.
Let's get back to transsexual folks to illustrate that further, he has his "Reparative therapy" that is designed in the case of a "Boy" who feels they are not, to make life as a "Boy" as miserable as humanly possible. In fact his "therapy" which consists of heavy doses of being "Toughened up" which would be enough to put a red blooded adult male off the prospect of masculinity for life. Now let's add "intersex" back into the equation, how does it look now? So Ken would surgically and hormonally force a child into a given sex before they are even aware of it? And then brutalize them to conform to that sex?
Zucker has certainly put his foot in it there. I wonder if he was ever to be found carrying a "Don't you wish" banner when he was younger.
