The Explosive Whitewashing of Surgical Rape
By Sophia Siedlberg
© November 15, 2007
An Article by Margaret Wente called "The explosive rethinking of sex reassignment" could go under a few other titles when you consider that she is on an editorial board of the John Hopkins. How about "The explosive return to Dr. John Money's baby mutilating" or the title I have chosen.
But of course this is not as obvious as it would first appear. Well, let’s look at it in more detail. Margaret Wente goes on to describe a 50 year old former male who had sex reassignment It is full of the usual stuff about Adams apples and "his" rejection of "his" role in life (as a man). It is the "Betrayal of biological sex" narrative that often gets wheeled out when describing some (usually older married and had kids) transsexual folks.
As with most of these "Betrayal of biological sex" narratives, it starts off all positive about our rather senior transsexual friend or "Transgendered" friend. (This is significant). Then you get the snap. In this case it is "There is an alternative theory about transgenderism" and then we get the Blanchard theory of Autogynephilia described, along with the victim of politically correct McCarthysism (Bailey) painted as the some long suffering scientist who wishes only to do good and then the upshot of it is: "We don't need to give these men surgery to become women just give them psychotherapy".
Margaret Wente is being honest in that it is an open debate, but what Margaret Wente has not been mentioning is what a lot of Blanchard Activists fail to tell you. You will notice that the Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence activists tend not to mention that the interest in male to female transsexual folks is part of something a little more insidious, a deliberately engineered paradigm shift that lets the advocates of people like Dr John Money off the hook.
The same creeping paradigm shift manifested in the intersex community as "They were all assigned girls and rejected it". You will never hear of ISNA describing a case where someone who was surgically masculinized during childhood rejecting it. When ISNA and the medical profession teamed up for a little chat about all this, allegedly, it was clearly stated that no one should ever mention surgical masculinization of infants. Mainly because any legal case against a doctor who had masculinized someone would prove incredibly damaging.
In a way Dr John Money became a convenient scapegoat because he (as a representative of the John Hopkins) surgically feminized any child with even the slightest problem in sight. But the creeping paradigm shift was not away from Money's core idea which was that with social conditioning someone will accept the sex they are assigned. It simply shifted into a sort of Beijing style: "Well, let's make them all male and they will accept it". Now what happens if someone surgically assigned "male" rejects it. Well, any claim that there may be any feminizing biology involved during development must be stamped on hard. Only recognizing masculinizing biology is allowed. So if the victim of infant surgical masculinization said, "Well, I feel more like a woman," then that will not wash. (See how Blanchard, et al. fit neatly into this) Add to this to persistent denial on the part of ISNA (And vivisectionists covering their backs) that masculinizing surgery never happened. (We hear the sound of shredding machines when this ever gets mentioned) and the person taking legal action against being masculinized has no chance of making their case. You see the HSTS/AGP theory peddled by Bailey is little more than part of a wider stitch up job to protect the backs of the likes of the John Hopkins.
Enter Alice Dreger who magically decided to investigate the allegations made against Bailey with regards to the mistreatment of research subjects. (Allegedly having sex with them if they were pretty enough and so on). Remember Alice Dreger, a member of ISNA and at the forefront of masculinizing surgery denial does this "investigation" and comes out claiming Bailey is a saint. Well, of course he is. Anyone with half a brain would know that Dreger was going to side with Bailey, because Bailey is the goose that lays the golden egg when it comes to stitching up victims of infant surgical masculinization. It sort of goes like this. If anyone "assigned" (surgically raped) "male" objects to it, then along comes Bailey with that: "Oh, but your rejecting being surgically raped is a man thing". And theorizes that your motivation for rejecting Male Assignment" is driven by "Male desires" so therefore the assignment was "Correct". The clever part of all this was Bailey initially writing about this applying to transsexual folks we are told. Well not quite, Bailey covers "intersex" in his book "The man who would be queen" It is chapter 3 I believe where David Reimer's case is spun into some Der Eigne "reclaimed male" narrative.
It does not take much imagination to see what you get when you put the dots together. It is a male bias that puts the killing rooms in Beijing to shame. The most intriguing thing is that so called "American Feminism" is complicit in it. It was after all "Radical Feminism" that often got cited by ISNA when dealing with intersex issues. Intersex was not an intersex issue; it was a "feminist issue", so if you were surgically assigned male as a child, you were lying. Only those surgically assigned female had a (token) voice. But looking at it in the wider context, it is little more than a bunch of so called feminists pandering to some Beijing style male gender bias.
You see when I read of Margaret Wente writing the article she did, I simply do not see it the way it was intended to be seen. (Bailey propaganda with a Beijing twist). The penny drops when you look at Margaret Wente's list of experts. Alice Dreger is on the editorial board of the John Hopkins publication where Wente's article appeared. As is Paul McHugh. Dreger was the architect of the "DSD guidelines" which were in truth based on a set of Guidelines published by the John Hopkins in 2000 where the term "DSD" first appears. The John Hopkins were at the center of the Money scandal. (Explains the back covering.) And now we find the John Hopkins defending a paradigm that when applied to intersex people (Dreger does apply it to intersex people by the way) it has the same sum effect that Money's ideas did. Only here it is: "Make ‘em boys"
I saw this particular Beijing cancer for what it was when it first started growing in 1993 when ISNA started the "Feminization victims only" line of argument. What is being advocated here is not some theory originally by Blanchard, (HSTS/AGP), but a typically six-pack American way of doing social cleansing. You will notice that the underlying tone of getting both "DSD" and "HSTS/AGP” accepted has involved a lot of argument between those they are being applied to and the self same people applying it. When those applying it have come against resistance, they have bullied people into accepting it. (So much for academic integrity.) And now it becomes painfully clear what the real picture is, male social cleansing. To begin with we have Bailey discussing eugenics, where the target is any potential fetus or child is deemed a "Diseased male" then the whole road-show including Dreger and a few others moves on to defining other "undesirables" as "Diseased males".
Well, the question is what can one conclude from all this. Are we witnessing the American medical profession covering their backs or something even more revolting, male social cleansing? That is even more deadly than that found in China? Let's face it in China it is much less sophisticated, they simply want "Boys" because "Boys" are profitable. In America they want "Perfect boys" or "Obedient boys". The big difference between the social cleansing in the US and in China is that in China the target for elimination would simply be females. In the American version the real target is not so easy to discern.
My suspicion is that in the US it is not about the elimination of one of the sexes, more the control of a given sex, and the cynical use of that control to extend to eliminating "people who do not fit". The underlying premise is a simple one. It is actually harder to fulfill the obligations of being a man than it is a woman. (If you live long enough). In the US the need to conform to male ideals are incredibly strict. (This even formed part of Money's reasoning for assigning them female because he reasoned they don't get the pressure of being an "inadequate" male). It is not aimed at "undermining women". (Well, not directly, but then imagine how feminism would fare in a world populated by Neanderthal men, but they are so dumb they have yet to see that, perhaps that is what they deserve.)
This social cleansing policy is a distinctly male controlling one. And it extends to intersex people because intersex people represent uncertainty. So if people call them all "Diseased men", then the US can have the policy of "Gas ‘em" (Give it 10 or so years.)
When it slips from "social engineering" to giving the dominant rutting male unfettered freedom and exclusive right to exist, then you may start seeing the US slip down the same road as China.
But in the here and now, it is really just about a bunch of child molesting vivisectionists covering their backs with about as much blood on their hands as their counterparts in China who run the killing rooms.
I mean if gender reassignment surgery is so bad when carried out on someone who consents to it, but is totally accepted on non consenting children; it seems to me that surgical rape is perhaps the best description when viewed in the wider context.
By Sophia Siedlberg
This essay has moved to the following URL:
This essay has moved to the following URL:
