Bruce Jenner and the mystique of transgender surgery

Most people don't realize how much of the controversy we see in America regarding LGBT issues is an offshoot of Critical Theory which is from The Frankfurt School of philosophy/sociology which came to the US in about 1935.  Political Correctness, Diversity, Black Studies, Women's Studies, and a number of other approaches to radically transforming our culture are from this source.

In the 1920's a European Marxist, who supported the idea of democratic socialism as opposed to violent revolution, was very frustrated that socialism was taking so long to be adopted.  He decided that killing off Capitalism wasn't happening because it was, in effect, held in place by other sets of beliefs in the existing culture: things like religion (Christianity, in particular), sexual mores, the family structure, traditions, etc.  And with that belief, we saw the birth of Cultural Marxism - the belief that until the existing sets of beliefs and traditions prevalent in the culture could be killed off, there was no way to destroy Capitaliism and introduce socialism in its place.

He, and a few other prominent academics who supported democratic socialism joined with him at the University in Frankfurt, Germany.  Their theories became known as The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.  With the rise of Hitler, they decided it prudent to move and ended up at Columbia University in New York.  (They, and their ideas, were still known as The Frankfurt School).  The Critical Theory is their primary development and has become a mainstay of many of the variants at work in radically transforming the culture.

Note that each of the different issues usually has valid and just core.  Feminism started with equal rights under the law and with being seen as human beings.  The same is true of ending racism.  But whether the issue is gender or race the resulting Progressive movement blows right past equal rights under the law and starts clamoring for 'social justice' and is couched in a way that is an attack on the whole of a given cultural tradition.  (Trojan Horse issues - made to look like justice on the outside, but about control on the inside).  The real end isn't what is visible on the surface, it is about creating division for identity politics and creating cultural vacuums to open room for centralized control by an elite.
-----------

On another note, I'm reminded of when I was in Belgium many years ago.  I headed for the bathroom in a new mall, still under contruction in some parts.  I found what I was pretty sure was a men's room and stuck my head inside - seeing the urinals I decided I was in the right place.  I was doing my business when I heard someone come in and it was a woman.  At that point it was too late stop what I was doing, and continued with the business in hand (no pun intended).  Later I learned that unisex bathrooms were common in Belgium.  I agree with Vera that as far as bathroom rules go, there seems to be no reason to make laws or to get all upset over who is using the toilets or urinals.  And I agree with George Reisman that private property and not government decrees are the way to go.

As far as birth certificates or other documents are concerned.... Maybe they should be treated like Marriage Licenses should be treated.  Something that the government has no business doing.  Where we need some kind of identification I'm sure the private market can handle that just fine - look at credit ratings.  The market place would determine what the function and precision and certainty of identification was needed, and the market place would also handle the other side of the transaction by providing the different levels of precision and trustworthiness needed.

Luke,

I'm familiar with the DSM III through the DSM IV but not the lastest (the DSM V).  And those changes I'm familiar with come from different sources or influences.  Some of the changes appear to be financially motivated.  That is, when something is given an ICD or DSM code, then they can be billed for.  There were lobbyists for clinics that taught math to undersperforming students who wanted a diagnosis of math dyslexia so that they could advertise treatments covered by insurance.  Other changes came from a better understanding of the subject matter (advances in research, more people who know what they are talking about chiming in.  And changes because time showed a better way to describe or to categorize disorders.)  Some good changes, some not so good.

You said "sane" or "insane."  But that isn't a good categorization of the DSM.  It attempts to discuss "disorders" and they include disorders that are not "insane" - like sufferring from a depression following the death of someone you love.  Or mild anxiety, like a young person that is shy enough to inhibit his or her social functioning.  A disorder is just something, like the flu is in medicine, that is seen as leaving a person somewhat below par in their mental/emotional life.  Only a small portion of the disorders include a complete break with reality (insanity) - like having hallucinations, for example, or being out of rational control.
------------------------

Today's academia is so strongly influenced by all of the many variants of Critical Theory, and all of social sciences are so infected that it is hard to untangle.  The funny thing is that Marxism in its earlier days strongly aligned with Freudian theories (way back then, in Europe, it was seen as 'scientific').  But one can find influence later on, here in the states, of the far left speaking from the base of Behavioralism as explanations of why modern man is "alienated" ("Alienation" in orthdox Marxist terms has a special meaning that isn't psychological).  There have been other influences that have moved psychology away from a view of man as possessing volition, and man as capable of cognition (not just instinct or conditioned responses) and we see those in the different philosophies that have been influential in academia (Postmodernists who are often also comfortable with Critical Theory, some of the German Idealists, American Pragmatists, Existentialists, etc.)

That was a good question, sorry I don't have a more concise answer.  It is all very muddled together in the soocial sciences and hard to follow the individual intellectual 'gene lines' - at least partly because so much of what is there is emotionalism disguised as reasoned approaches, and because there is often a bit of a hidden agenda at work as well. 

My take on Critical Theory is that it is the academic conveyance of the non-idea of 'kill the old views' and that is never conveyed in clear terms.  It has to be conveyed by inuendo, attitude, body language and intonation in the lecture halls.  And it is spread not just from university to university, but from subject area to subject area (history, English Lit., Sociology, etc.)  And that it moves like it was on tracks when it comes to adopting a sense of life that is anti-hero, and, in a word, snarky.  And always portrayed as 'this is this way those of us who are cool and in on the know' are.  It is a presentation that seems to shape itself to imply that those who question or resist will be ridiculed and driven from the herd.

Luke,

The word "insane" is usually reserved for a person who isn't able to function on their own, someone who needs constant care and attention.  If a person has a hallucination because they took LSD they wouldn't be thought of a "insane" - mostly because it is temporary.  But if someone had those hallucinations constantly - weren't able to connect with reality at all - that would commonly be seen as a state of insanity.  The psychological community doesn't really have an agreed upon definition - but they tend to use the word as meaning a state where the person hasn't sufficient grasp of reality to function.  The DSM has no such category and no definition for "insane" and the APA only lists the legal definition of "insanity."

Gender dysporia is that state of being unhappy with one's physical gender.  That isn't a hallucination.  That person know what sex they are physically, they just don't like that.  Hallucinations are a break with reality at the perceptual level - it is seeing something that isn't there, or hearing something where there wasn't a sound.  If that is a sustained condition it is clearly a very serious state.  Transgender people "feel" like they are the opposite sex from their genitals - a feeling, not a hallucination.  You can see that since they are unhappy about their physical sex, and that isn't a hallucination, that they aren't out of rational control.  On a less exotic scale, you can imagine a person who feels like they really are a slim person stuck in a body that is 20 or 30 pounds overweight.  They look in the mirror and they see the fat and they don't like the fat (they are dysphoric about that), and they don't hallucinate a visual image of a skinny person.  If we took this to more of an extreme we can imagine such a person seeking cosmetic surgery to have the fat removed.  And the surgeon should be seeing if the person is unrealistic in their expectations before agreeing to the surgery.  Do they think that it will make their life perfect?  If so, a surgeon would send them for some therapy first (but they aren't insane - maybe just neurotic).
-----------------

Because it is a statistical manual, I have to wonder what objective standards (if any) exist outside the DSM to which psychiatrists can point as "real" or "not real" when evaluating clients for their adherence to reality or departure from reality, especially in regards to religious precepts or even scientific notions outside the mainstream. 

There was a brilliant idea behind the DSM.  Remember that at one time, not so long ago, there were as many as 400 different theoretical orientations.  Each one saying it was the best model for understanding the human mind.  Freudian, Jungian, Existentialist, Behavioralist, Cognitivist, etc.  And each one with its own set of therapuetic techniques.  The idea behind the DSM was to get an agreement among a majority of good practitioners on the symptoms of disorders.  That is, what would you see that would be common to all depressions of a kind?  What symptoms would be common to all clients who report panic attacks?  What symptoms would distinguish a narcissistic personality from all others?  They specifically left out any theory on the psychological model, and the theoretical description related to the cause, and they left out any description of treatment.  They left all of that out because there was no way to get agreement.  But they could get a high degree of agreement on clusters of symptoms and the name to associate with them.  Symptoms are observable and can be objectively described.  That makes it possible to have a name for a set of symptoms and thereby gather information on change, on treatment effectiveness, statistics, etc.  A bridge between all the different theoretical orientations.
----------------------------

If you're interested here is some more info on the DSM (DSM III and IV - I'm not crazy about the V).

It is Multi-axial: That is, they divide the complete diagnosis up into 5 axis (important dimensions that can relate to the diagnois)

Axis I: Clinical Syndromes: This is the heart of the diagnosis, like schizphrenia or a phobia or major depression. 

Axis II: Developmental Disorders and Personality Disorders  (these are the background, if they exist, against which an Axis I disorder might be at work.  For example someone might have a sociopathic personality disorder (Axis II) ever since they were a child, but they are in a hospital for severe substance abuse (which would be the Axis I diagnosis).  Axis II are almost always from childhood and of one of two kinds: personality disorders, and developmental disorders.

Axis III: Physical Conditions.  These are included if they play an important role in creating or exacerbating Axis I or II disorders.  It gives a more complete picture of the client's situation (when a physical condition applies).

Axis IV: Severity of Psychosocial Stressors.  This is just an indicator of the degree of stress the person feels relating to their personal life or career.  The therapist is looking for any major events like loss of a job, divorce, death in the family, etc.  Stressors can cause or exacerbate Axis I or II conditions.

Axis V: Highest Level of Functioning.  It is important to have a sense of how well the person is functioning.  Are they doing well in their career or work life or school?  How are they doing in their relationships?  This is important to know because some diagnosis would be totally inappropriate for a person who is high functioning.  And if a person is functioning at a very low level, that is an important clue when looking at different diagnosis.
--------

Next, the diagnosis are divided up into related categories like mood disorders, sexual disorders and dysfunctions, sleep disorders, substance related disorders, etc.

Then in most of those categories, there are a number of Axis I disorders.  For example, Mood Disorders include Bipolar disorder, Major Depressive disorder, and a couple of others.

Under Major Depressive Disorder you get diagnostic criteria like this:
  Must exhibit 5 or more of the following 9 symptoms:
   A) Must report a depressed mood that occurs every day and for nearly the entire day.
   B) Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all activities every day, for nearly the entire day.
   C) Significant weight gain or weight loss not part of an intended diet (5% change in wieght in a month or less)
   D) Insomnia or hypersomnia
   E) Psychomotor agitation or retardation (observable by others)
   F) Fatigue or loss of energy
   G) Feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt
   H) Diminished ability to think or concentrate or indecisiveness
   I) Recurrent thoughts of death.
(I've summarized these to a degree.  And there are about 4 pages that describe each of key items above - i.e., what they look like to the therapist.)

Then it has differential diagnosis tips to help separate out normal bereavement, mistaking dementia in older clients from depression, ADHD, a depressive cycle that is actually part of a Bipolar disorder, depressed mood caused by physiological effect of a drug or substance or withdrawl, etc.  This is like a medical doctor being told by a patient that they are having headaches and the doctor needing to rule out brain tumors, trauma induced brain injury, meningitus, allegies, stress, etc.

The whole section on Major Depressive Disorder is about 7 and a half page in length.  The parts I haven't shown are the very rich and detailed descriptions of how the different symptoms appear to the therapist.  (E.g., "Individuals with major depressive disorder often present with tearfulness, irritability, brooding, obsessive rumination, anxiety, phobias, excessive worry over health, and complaints of..." and so forth.)

Mostly, the DSM helps a therapist look more closely at everything being presented, think about what they are seeing more clearly, and avoid making a mistake in understanding what they are seeing.  No therapist would want to start helping a person they thought to be depressed when that person should be referred to a medical doctor for treatment of a serious medical problem that was causing a few depression-like symptoms.

Steve has penned two thoughtful comments. Both are worth some cogitation and analysis. This paragraph from the first of the last two comments caught my eye:

Today's academia is so strongly influenced by all of the many variants of Critical Theory, and all of social sciences are so infected that it is hard to untangle.  The funny thing is that Marxism in its earlier days strongly aligned with Freudian theories (way back then, in Europe, it was seen as 'scientific').  But one can find influence later on, here in the states, of the far left speaking from the base of Behavioralism as explanations of why modern man is "alienated" ("Alienation" in orthdox Marxist terms has a special meaning that isn't psychological).  There have been other influences that have moved psychology away from a view of man as possessing volition, and man as capable of cognition (not just instinct or conditioned responses) and we see those in the different philosophies that have been influential in academia (Postmodernists who are often also comfortable with Critical Theory, some of the German Idealists, American Pragmatists, Existentialists, etc.)

I am an anti-fan of Critical Theory as it has infected otherwise rigorous disciplines or fields of study. My best female friend did a later-in-life PhD, majoring in History, and the result was a complete disdain for presumptions of knowledge. Not a measured, methodological skepticism about truth and fact claims -- or the difficulties of gaining knowledge -- but a position that suggests all 'truths' are contingent, socially-produced, of little objectivity.  There was along the way many opportunities for me to observe what actual 'critical' thinking my friend showed day to day.  I was then acquainted with contemporary fronds and fiddleheads burgeoning from the infected disciplines. 

Steve, you stress a slightly different point of weakness in disciplines infected with Critical Theory than I do.  I am most 'Objectivish' in relation to the ability of human beings to pursue and gain reliable knowledge.  I value strongly protracted work of reasoning, subject to the filter of scientific 'error-checking.  I value the 'push-back' on so-called postmodern thinking such as the great touchstone book by Levitt and Gross,  "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science," which came at the height of the "Science Wars." Other works that helped inform me about the scope of infection were "Fashionable Nonsense," by Sokal and Bricmont, and the output of the worthies at the CSI (publisher of Skeptical Inquirer). See, especially, The Reality of Reality.

With regard to Steve's note on American Pragmatism, there is a gulf between the infected (say, Richard Rorty) and the clear-thinking.  I recommend to you the work of my favourite living philosopher, Susan Haack. She has a stupendous intellect and a thorough brief.  You might be acquainted with one of her more recent books, the fabulous "Defending Science - within Reason: Between Scientism And Cynicism." For a sample of her kind of thinking -- not shot through with jargon or inanities -- see the great short essay she wrote for Skeptical Inquirer, Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

I have some more considered remarks on this thread, but would like to first note the question I asked of Bill -- knowing that there are intersex and ambiguously-gendered children born every month, what would you as a parent do if your child was one, if your child exhibited any of the ambiguities of development that I listed above in my first comment? (the first thing I would do would be to understand the particular case of my child: is it XXY, is it some other known syndrome, is the syndrome likely to fuck with normal adolescent sexual development?

-- what I took home from the Jenner transgender hoopla was that Bruce struggled for a long, long time to be honest about his gender 'dysphoria.'  Feeling trapped in the wrong body  may be 'sick' and demented to some, but I believe the struggle was lifelong and 'real.'  I have great empathy for the person now referred to as Caitlyn. 

And one last interesting/gross note -- who has heard of 'facial feminization surgery'? 

(Edited by William Scott Scherk on 11/15, 12:34pm)

William Scott,

Thanks for the kind words.

I was looking into the intellectual roots of Progressivism - poking about in the political geneology of today's Progressive movement.  I had uncovered some basic precursors in the post-millenial piety movement in the late 1800's, and later in the Progressive Era which came along with the socialist influence of the labor movement at the time.   But it wasn't till I looked at the influence of Saul Alinsky that I felt I was getting closer to understanding modern Progressivism.  Even then it still felt like there was a large gap in my grasp of what led from that early ancestory to what I am seeing from the far left today.  Too many commonalities in today's far left that don't seem to have an intellectual source - until I started looking at Cultural Marxism and the concept of attacking anything in the existing culture as a way of clearing a 'space' for socialism.  It was the view of Cultural Marxism (coming from from the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory) and acting as a theoretical foundation that let me feel that my understanding of Progressivism is beginning to feel whole.  (Note: There re those on the left who have labled "Cultural Marxism" a conspiracy theory.)

As a side note, I was astounded at the incestuous and fecund explosion of the ideas throughout the academic system.  These professors move about like traveling bards... but fast!  One semester at this university and the next at another -and they are aided by the internet with emails, blogs, papers, and forums.  They have more titles, grants, special study activities, published papers and conferences than I ever would have imagined.  The degree to which the academy is able to reproduce itself with a high fidelity to its ideas is considerable.  They have significant control over faculty hiring, the promotion of their grad students, and what they teach.  They are steady in their movement towards increased radicalization, and steady in the spread from one discipline to the infecting of another.

I'm still working on my understanding of the philosophies that are drawn on to support the different aspects of Progressivism.  In that area, I thank you for the suggested those readings on postmodernism (I've downloaded the papers you recommended, and put the books into my Amazon wishlist).

I'm still looking for some specific sources of the drive to keep end-goals secret.  Much (nearly all) of modern progressivism is made of fake outer goals - disguising the actual goal (the drive for power and control).  Being able to tell near-constant lies and still maintain a pretense of morality is supported by Saul Alinsky's "The ends justifies the means" but I'd like to find a better lock on where the explicit "Rules for Radicals" type of instruction to  keep the political "ends" secret.  Is it just implied with a nod and wink or given explicit sanction in writing somewhere?

No one has yet mentioned the sheer illogic and nonsense being injected into our national conversations, and the minds of our children, by the logical next step of all this gender reassignment we're seeing these days: "daddies" using their eggs to have babies and "mommies" using their sperm to make the babies. I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not joking. Read this story about Jason now "Bianca" Bowser (the "mommy" with the sperm) and Nichole now "Nick" Bowser (the "daddy" with the eggs). Read it and weep. Meet the Bowsers - transgender parents raising sons (ABC News)

Yes, I know, someone will trot out Aristotle's elucidation of the Law of Contradiction and point out that there is not really a contradiction here. "Nick" being a "daddy" and an egg-donor and baby-incubator is not at odds with the facts of reality, and neither is "Bianca" being a "mommy" and a sperm-donor. But somehow, I think that if he had heard about this possibility, Aristotle's head would have exploded. Maybe Ayn Rand's, too. Mine has done several 360's...

REB

What I'd like to see is a "deconstruction" of the Post-Modernists. If it's already been done, please somebody send me a link or book title!