Post-op transgender Vicky Sawyer wrote to Stabroek News on the 12th April 2010, and the response below was immediately sent. It is doubtful that Stabroek News will print the rebuttal as articulated below … or a shortened version sent as well. Additionally, while SN has been generous in representing some comments to Vicky’s letter at , it has also refused to publish other critical responses to points made by both Vicky and Sophie Hawes. This, I believe, reflects the general approach used by a complicit media and GLBTmilitancy as documented in the law review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy” ( ). The comments that SN declined to carry (more than 24 hours after they were submitted) are appended below the rebuttal, which itself has still not been published at April 19, 2010 … fully one week after Sawyer’s letter!

Dear Editor, I refer to the letter by V. Sawyers “Homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorders are Not the Same” (SN 12/04/10) and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Confusion and delusion, however inadvertent, remains confusion and delusion nevertheless, and it is ... sobering ... to see the parroting of "pseudo-science" that has been hastily manufactured since 1973 to replace the clinical evidence of 120 years before, and which still remains relevant today. Seven fatal flaws immediately appear in his letter. First, an unavoidable consequence of mental disorders seems akin to the “strong delusion” alluded to by the Bible. It also places in perspective the significance of sexual deviancy in religion and general life, and its abject consequences evident in the LGBT community. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D. (1996) refers to the phenomenon in psycho-sexual disorder as “denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded”, and an immediate approach in rebuttal is to compare Sawyer’s words with those of bona-fide experts in the field. Dr. Paul McHugh (2004) concurs: “… I have learned from the experience that the toughest challenge is trying to gain agreement to seek empirical evidence for opinions about sex and sexual behavior, even when the opinions seem on their face unreasonable. One might expect that those who claim that sexual identity has no biological or physical basis would bring forth more evidence to persuade others. But as I’ve learned, there is a deep prejudice in favor of the idea that nature is totally malleable….” Secondly, Sawyer refers to DSM IV, and this is significant, in that he hopes thereby to invalidate the combined clinical research of Freud, Jung and Adler. Readers should peruse the first few paragraphs of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual” in the subsection “History of Diagnosis” ( ) to see that no “science” explained the radical … and medically unsupported … new approaches adopted or instigated in DSM-IV. Nicolosi points out: “ … All three great pioneers of psychiatry—Freud, Jung and Adler—saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders…”. No less a calumny has been foisted on the diagnosis for transgenderism. Thirdly, Sawyer parrots the “(Female) Neuron Numbers In A Limbic Nucleus” gabble, otherwise translated as the 2000-“brain-sex” theory of transsexualism. As with much of the hasty pseudo-science developed to provide advocacy for activism on psychosexual disorders after DSM-IV, the fact that the theory has been largely discredited, and is no longer relevant as a rational diagnosis seems lost on him, and readers should examine the stunning rebuttal in 2007 “A Critique of the Brain-Sex Theory of Transsexualism” ( ) by Anne A. Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D. She concludes “…The brain-sex theory of transsexualism has never been easy to reconcile with clinical reality: Homosexual and non-homosexual MtF transsexualism are so different clinically that it is almost impossible to imagine that they could have the same etiology…. The brain-sex theory was never helpful in explaining clinical observations; now it has become irrelevant to explaining neuroanatomical observations…” The irony should not be lost on readers. In properly destroying one of GLBT's favourite pillars, the "Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Neucleus" theory, a transsexual doctor on the fly seeks without proof (in her conclusion) to denigrate the usually contemporaneous diagnoses of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism. Pseudo-science has embraced clinical inquiry, and also blind denial, in a seamless moment of delusional angst!

Fourthly, Mr. Sawyer in post-op illustrates the classic denial … or delusion … that Dr. Paul McHugh explains … in 2005 … in his tragic but eminently informative article “Surgical Sex” ( ). Despite Sawyer’s energetic optimism, we should offer in response the clinical findings of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. John Meyer as reported by Dr. McHugh (this had not been explained to Mr. Sawyer before the operation, apparently, and he becomes a stunning model-case for the “older man” syndrome in paragraphs 8-12): “… The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females. As they had grown older, they had become eager to add more verisimilitude to their costumes and either sought or had suggested to them a surgical transformation that would include breast implants, penile amputation, and pelvic reconstruction to resemble a woman…. The name eventually coined in Toronto to describe this form of sexual misdirection was “autogynephilia.” Once again I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it…” Sawyer’s story of tragedy and regret, we suspect, is just beginning to unfold. Fifthly, I suspect, Sawyer misinterprets the “support” his family has offered him thus far, and the commercial motive of unscrupulous surgeons. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( ) calls such support a “bastardized moral sense” and hints at its origin, and at the instinctive reaction of most intelligent people when faced with a psychosexual disorder in these “enlightened times”: “…This popular movement of the sixties and seventies criticized what psychology had been and preached emotional openness, spontaneity and being true to oneself. Growth was no longer seen as a product of intelligence and problem solving, but rather was viewed solely in emotional terms. “‘Feeling good about yourself ’ became the litmus test of good behavior, a sort of bastardized moral sense” (Leahey, 1987)….”. Dr. Paul McHugh (2004) is less inclined to be subtle, and, like Nicolosi, laments the failure of the Mental Health profession (albeit under the burden of political correctness): “…As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it …” Sixthly, Sawyer’s comment about being “yet to meet a homosexual who claimed to be changed that was not in fact struggling” … again panders to that “bastardized moral sense” and is a misapplication of the logical approach used by psychiatrists. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s approach is more practical. “… Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: “the answer, as you suspected, is no.” Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? ...” Seventhly, Sawyer’s claim to be a one-off repudiation of 120 years of psychiatric research and application is … unlikely! His careful reference to his “wife” (he instinctively considers himself still to be the ‘husband’) as “not being lesbian” illustrates that he has in fact read McHugh’s work, is carefully sculpting his responses, and is completely oblivious to the fact that she, supposedly being heterosexual, will suddenly now have emotional and support needs that he can no longer supply to her. That degree of callous selfishness, one should think, may be also be applied to considerations of the seeds of gender-confusion he has now sown in the minds of his “numerous children and grandchildren” (placed in parentheses simply because, as you may well understand by now, every argument brought to bear by the GLBT community is chock-full of half-truths and innuendo) Yours faithfully Roger Williams April 12, 2010 April 19, 2010

*Editor-omitted comment #1 at
Focus, Sawyer, focus ...

No one is confusing homosexuality with transgenderism. The literature is merely illustrating the proximity of the conditions... since both mental disorders seek to displace fundamental creationstructures like "sex", "manhood", "womanhood" and "marriage". Please also note the contemporaneous references everywhere in the studies already cited. See, in addition, "Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria" by Matt Staver ( ), Liberty University School of Law. In addressing every decided case in the US prior to 2006, he concludes: "... Sex must be determined by objective factors such as biology and physiology. A person's sex is determined by chromosomes. When there is harmony between biology and physiology, surgery cannot alter a person's sex merely because that person desires a different gender. If sex is primarily a state of mind and based on subjective mental desires, equal protection for sex-based classications becomes meaningless. To maintain any stability and meaning to sex-based classication, sex must (and can) be determined by objective factors..." Secondly, you mention the APA. The aim of these threads must be to bring to bear a body of evidence and genuine research that shows gay-militant, and then GBLT-, academic heresy and skulduggery. In that regard, you should read the law review "Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association's Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness" by Ben Kaufmann ( ); 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002). In "“Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger ( ), an inevitable conclusion is reached: "... On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult-child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals...) Are you sure, Sawyer, that the right “science’ informed your decision?

* Editor-omitted comment #2 at

Hawes, your being "amazed" doesn't change the facts! Readers should immediately peruse the full article called "Surgical Sex" ( ) to see how Hawes’ answers shape up against that of Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor at Johns Hopkins University. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a cadre of intellectual mercenaries in GBLT-activist circles are actively trying to supplant real science and real scientists with blase'-sounding pronouncements that mean ... nothing ... and perpetuate a hoax of stunning proportions! Hawes still seems confused about whether to use the rigour and precision in science, or to revert to the nebulous fairy-tale world of GBLT-activism. To settle the matter of "sex" versus "gender" we should refer Hawes immediately to the article "Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion — Sexual Behavior Disorders”; ), subsection "What is the difference between sex and gender?" Sex is determined by chromosomes, while gender is either male or female! The PFOX-article is forced to conclude:

"... The courts have found that “one’s sex is fixed at the moment of conception” and that chromosomes should be the primary relevant factor in determining sex. Chromosome testing is used to determine sex.... Describing gender cannot be simply a ‘perception’ or a ‘feeling.’ “Subjective mental thoughts about sex/gender are too amorphous to use as a baseline to establish sex..." Next, Hawes admits to personal paranoia ... defined as "… a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission…". Surely this should be enough to tell Hawes that the answers lay inside his head, and not in the mutilation of the body. We have mentioned before that the gender-reassignment or sex-change "industry" has preyed on the delusional state of its "patient-victims" to further nothing less than a profit-motive. Next, Hawes should read Matt Staver's "Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria" ( article=8309&context=expresso ). It should open his eyes to the reality and size of the GLBThoax. Finally, Hawes should again be reminded to tell us what it is, exactly, he disagrees with in the article “A Critique of the Brain-Sex Theory of Transsexualism” ( ) by Anne A. Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D.. What is it that Dr. Lawrence knows that Hawes or Sawyer do not? As to the role the AMA has played, and continues to play, in perpetuating the hoax, Hawes should read the law reviews "Why Narth? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness" ( ) by Ben Kaufman. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002); and "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”. By Ty Clevenger; ( ). 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) DSM-V will continue to reflect a farce! ... unless...

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful