Identity crisis
THERE seems to be a rapidly expanding transgender community, meaning those who don’t identify with their assigned gender at birth.
This is a very important health and community issue, especially as research shows that about 75 per cent of young transgender adults have been clinically depressed at some point, around 80 per cent have self-harmed and about half have attempted suicide.
That’s a community mental health crisis that calls for a widespread community and health system response.
Increasingly, health professionals are being encouraged to respond by adopting a trans-affirmative practice. This means supporting the young person in identifying with an alternative gender.
Parents and others are counselled to adopt the preferred pronouns of the child, such as ‘they’ instead of ‘him’ or ‘her’.
Health professionals are encouraged to educate and guide parents through their fears in accepting the change.
These recommended practices are partly based on research that much of the poor mental health of transgender youth stems from others’ prejudice. Indeed, at a recent psychology conference, we were informed that multiple studies have found that 100 per cent of mental health problems of transgender individuals could be accounted for by their exposure to discrimination and marginalisation by others.
Reportedly, 93 per cent of 56 studies found a positive impact of gender transition on wellbeing and only 7 per cent found mixed or indeterminate findings. Reportedly, not one study found overall negative effects of gender transition.
Therein lies my problem. I’m open to considering the negative impact of ‘cisgenderism’, defined by the belief that there are only two genders and that someone’s gender should be determined by their assigned sex at birth.
I have some misgivings about the ‘cisgender’ term when prescriptively applied, because to me it smacks of reverse prejudice urging a shift to politically correct groupthink.
But I’m especially open to exploring the issue owing to the disturbing statistics of mental health problems in those with a non-normative gender orientation.
However, I’ve never encountered anything in the social sciences that explains 100 per cent of the impact of a complex phenomenon.
I cannot see how not even 1 per cent of the emotional distress of transgen- der individuals could be attributed to additional challenges, including some self-doubt or qualms about not identifying with their assigned gender. Psychological therapy over the past 50 years has largely been based on the principle that it is not so much the situation we are in, but how we perceive it, that is the key contributor to ongoing distress. Can it be true that 100 per cent of the distress of transgender individuals can be explained solely by one external factor — that of others’ prejudice. To me, reporting such supposedly exclusive research findings could intimidate others from expressing understandable doubts. I believe I am broadminded in considering other people’s reality. I was one of the early mainstream clinicians to accept the reality of multiple personality disorder as it was then described. I had no doubt that numerous individuals genuinely believed that they had different personalities within them, including those of contrasting genders. But I didn’t necessarily accept the client’s reality at face value. I also believe that perceptions of others’ prejudice can be overdone. The results of the recent Australian same-sex marriage plebiscite, and widespread cele- bration afterwards, suggest to me that our society is not hellbent on marginalising or persecuting those in related minorities.
But sometimes others’ experience can seem so foreign to one’s own that it’s difficult not to have reservations.
Such questionable research findings that others’ attitudes and behaviour are the sole cause of mental health problems leads me to question whether those conducting, reporting or acting on such research are at least partly driven by ideology.
I found it curious that the conference presenter wore a prominent lower lip ring and peaked cap mounted with sunglasses in contrast to the business attire requested of attendees. To me, his appearance and language smacked of a transparent and forceful anti-authoritarian stance. Paradoxically, his tone seemed extraordinarily prescriptive. I was left with the lingering impression that the presenter was similarly invested in authority as those who might forcefully defend normative cisgendered views, but just wished that authority to reside with a different subgroup.
I believe as a community we need to spend a lot more time and effort getting our heads around these vexed gender identity issues. No doubt further social change is in order. But I’m wary of those with an agenda on gender that seems dogmatic or ideological.