Bob, I shall try to keep this short..
Since they were established in Canada, gender clinics have followed the
Harry Benjamin rules for transition. In order to “qualify” for state
assistance in funding the operation, the clinic and patient had to follow
that protocol. It include a full two year “living as” test during which.
One had to live full time as the desired gender for two solid years with no
backsliding. A dangerous time for many. Until the late 20th century,
names and sex could not be changed during transition; that had to wait
until transition was completed. Again this gave rise to embarrassing and,
at times, dangerous interaction with police, prisons, border guards, and
others. Multiple meetings with psychologists and other professionals to
confirm the diagnosis of gender identity disorder in DSM -IV. Only after
this would one qualify for state funded operations. The purpose of this
structure was to try to get the patient to drop out of transition, to
prevent “mistakes “. Only those who survived would be approved for
operation.
These rules applied with little change to adults and children, with age
limits established.
In the United States, the rules were the same but there was no state
assistance. Counselling and all the rest, especially needed surgery was
all private and very expensive. Americans chaffed under the rules which
limited their “freedoms” to do as they wished without the rules. Lacking
state funding, the rules were enforced. Doctors who did the operation,
then a very small number, would not perform the operation without various
consents,
So with nothing to gain, American TS started to demand “operation on
demand”,that is the freedom to simple tell a doctor, not sanctioned by any
agency, that this was what was wanted and pay for it. And the activists
demanded that children also be granted that right.
Such a difference put the clinics and activist on a collision course.
In many types of therapy for children, especially that established by
almost all Christian religions, the purpose was to force children to reject
their wish for surgery and to return to God and for all time to their birth
gender. It caused run-always, depression, and suicide. Force was often
employed, discipline, and emotional attacks were deployed to return a child
to their birth gender for living.
This is what reparative treatment was. Forcing a child to reject the
motivation to transition.
On the other side, this practise was deemed abusive and a denial of
rights. Activists said that children who professed GID should receive
support and encouragement to discover themselves. As was the case for most
children, with the affirming route would sort out the real transsexuals
from the others without the ugliness that resulted from the rigid therapy.
This was the moral of almost all media coverage distilled down to freedom
to be yourself or discipline to force you to “stop all this nonsense”.
It became a very nasty war.
But what was reparative therapy? Was it not necessary to challenge the
basic belief that he was really a she? The dividing line between the
method of using negative therapy and quietly with no threat making the
child think seriously about professed need to change was a fine one.
Nanaimo? I doubt if any proponents, members of staff, or council would
recognize the subtle difference If it flew up and hit them in the face. Do
Gooders without training or understanding pushing a certain approach in the
name of freedom (thus taking the high road, media-wise) against repressive
rules. Like those who refuse to wear masks these days in the name of
freedom and thus ignoring the very obvious perils of freedom. In my
opinion measured by suicide the number prevented, in a firm but quite way,
from continuing transition is much or shall be much less than the suicide
by those who complete transition only to find all the professionals were
wrong and thus regret even starting transition. Court cases in the UK and
Australia have been started by patients who made the change only to find
they had made, with professional assistance, the wrong life long choice.
After hormones an operation, turning back would be possible.
Now Bob. I did try to keep this short but your question are not easy to
address. Those of us who support the old approach appear as bullies
against the bleat of freedom. But the freedom advocates do not have to live
with the mistakes caused. To fully address your question would take pages
and pages.
