Transgender Psychosurgeries Don't Work? Who Could Have Predicted This!

Huge survey shows mental health declines after sex lobotomy

Someone who predicted that gender magic would turn out to be a fiction

“Transgender individuals … face a heightened risk of psychological distress and related challenges, including suicidal tendencies,” say the authors of a new paper at the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Their study, which examined the anonymized records of 107,583 people sorted into six cohorts, found that patients who undergo so-called ‘gender affirming’ surgeries “were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery.”

Of course, ‘gender identity’ is a god that cannot fail, it can only ever be failed. The study authors blame “individuals’ heightened exposure to stigma-related stress, often referred to as minority stress,” specifically “the stress of not receiving gender affirmation” from society, for these poor outcomes.

Apparently, ‘gender affirmation’ is the first mental health treatment in history that requires the whole of society to act crazy in order for the supposed therapy to work on an individual person.

Of course, the alternative explanation is that the transgender psychosurgery simply did not succeed as advertised. Instead of reducing mental health issues and self-destructive behaviors, sex lobotomy actually made these problems worse. The authors are unwilling to examine this possibility.

They do however critique the low quality of the existing literature on mental health outcomes as “largely unclear,” perhaps unintentionally echoing the Cass Review. In an effort to improve the data, the research team used the TriNetX database to look at patients over 18 who had no known mental health diagnoses other than gender dysphoria.

Their results show a “divergence from survey-based findings” that mental health improves with transgender surgeries. Rather than question the underlying premise of the surgeries, the authors conclude that surgical patients require more mental health care in addition to the psychosurgery that was supposed to solve all the problems.

“Me, I predicted this”

Under the heading of “hierarchical criteria and mental health diagnoses,” the study authors unintentionally describe the phenomenon of ‘diagnostic overshadowing,’ in which clinicians focus on the supposed gender identity of the patient instead of their comorbid mental health issues. Critics of ‘gender medicine’ have been talking about this for a decade.

The study authors call for a “diagnostic shift” that identifies and addresses these mental health issues after surgery. Slowing down the surgery to identify and address those mental health issues first: this is unthinkable, therefore the possibility goes unmentioned.

“Despite the observed increase in mental health issues, gender-affirming surgery remains essential in aligning transgender individuals’ physical appearance with their gender identity, offering significant psychological benefits,” the authors insist.

What benefits? Greater “satisfaction with their body image and surgical outcomes.” They are happy with how they look, therefore they must be happier people, even if their mental health declines.

These authors are consistent with a broader shift in apologetics for ‘gender affirming care,’ post-Cass Review, that dispenses with the supposed improvements in mental health, focusing instead on superficial satisfaction with changes in appearance.

Rather than a ‘settled science,’ the gender quacks have in fact been making it up as they go this whole time.

Most of the people surveyed were female. This is consistent with the recent trend of more women identifying as male than the other way around, a demographic flip of the previous historical cohort of transsexuals.

In any ordinary area of medicine, that sudden change would raise immediate red flags. Researchers who question this aspect of so-called ‘gender medicine,’ most notably Lisa Littman, are instead subject to cancellation by the scientific medical publishing world.

“Our study reveals that both male and female patients with gender dysphoria who undergo gender-affirming surgery are at significantly higher risk for adverse mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorder, compared to those who do not undergo gender-affirming surgery,” the new survey authors write.

“This trend persists even after controlling for confounding factors through propensity score matching. Notably, transgender men showed a greater relative risk for these mental health issues compared to transgender women following gender-affirming surgery.”

Put in plain words, both sexes show a decline in mental health outcomes, but females have worse outcomes than men. Pain increases their use of painkillers. Given the extremely high complication rates of phalloplasty and metoidioplasty compared to vaginoplasty, this scenario often leads to dependence, depression, and suicidality.

If only someone had predicted this exact outcome! Here is someone who did. The Trevor Project, which exists to promote the same myth of ‘minority stress’ that the authors of this study promote, has consistently labeled anyone who has predicted this outcome on YouTube “dangerous and discredited,” but Exulansic has the receipts.

“Examining gender-specific mental health risks after gender-affirming surgery: a national database study” was received with the usual caveats last week. Critics of the gender-affirming ‘care’ model who know these science policy issues in detail advised that it was not quite a smoking gun or final word. As always, the science evolves.

Instead, the study authors went looking for evidence in medical billing history that would support the low-quality surveys purporting to show mental health improvements from transgender surgeries, and they did not find that evidence, indeed they found evidence suggesting the opposite.

The authors faced a dilemma. On one side was the ‘publish-or-perish’ ethos of their professional world that required them to share and explain the data. On the other side was the actual data, which conflicted with the theory of ‘gender medicine,’ so they filled in the gap between theory and data with the softest kind of science.

Invoking ‘stigma,’ a religious term, the authors use a fashionable psychology framework. They have shaped their interpretation and recommendation to fit the current politics of academic publishing.

Swallowing ideology whole, they define ‘transgender people’ as “those who experience a mismatch between their gender identity and the sex assigned at birth,” which assumes that magical gender gremlins really do exist inside every person and sometimes mismatch their human bodies.

The authors took the supposed reality of ‘gender identity’ on faith. They had to, otherwise they wouldn’t get published. Perhaps they did not expect their study to be received by a public opposition that has wised up to the language games of ‘gender medicine.’ Perhaps they hoped to escape notice by the evil TERFs.

Whatever the reason, they chose not to simply bury their study, like Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy did, and that is good. While their results are not the final evidence that ‘gender medicine’ is bad, they are good evidence that the gender quacks will never produce actual, real scientific evidence that the gender-magic woo woo really works.

Imagine the moral injury of having to admit you were actually wrong about the trans stuff and this guy was right the whole time you were wrong

The study authors however conclude that a more individualized approach, with changes in “diagnostic frameworks and psychiatric practices,” will make the gender-magic woo woo work. Attempting to change the material outcomes of disrupted biology with words is not science, it is sorcery.

In a recent letter to the editor of the Italian Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia, Turkish urologist Zeki Bayraktar notes that “urogenital mutilation” impairs urinary function, not just sexual function. “Surgical complications requiring revision, which reduce the quality of life, are common,” he notes.

Gender ‘affirmation’ surgery (GAS) thus “violates the medical principle of ‘first, do no harm’ (primum non nocere) and systematically harms transgender individuals,” Bayraktar writes. “In my opinion, GAS is the greatest systematic iatrogenic harm in the history of medicine.”

Transgender individuals have serious mental health issues and need psychosocial support because of these problems. However, GAS does not provide them with any tangible benefit; on the contrary, it harms them. As surgeons, we are not improving the mental health issues of transgender individuals with GAS; instead, we are collaborating with their mental health issues and, by engaging in consent engineering, mutilating them urogenitally. In short, we do not treat them, we victimize them.

People want transgender surgery because they think that they need transgender surgery. Clinicians and therapists and television and Google results all tell them they will die without transgender surgery. Consent or die: this blackmail is indeed “consent engineering.”

Now an exhaustive database search cannot produce evidence that sex lobotomy works, but we supposedly must keep doing it anyway because the dysphoric people are convinced without evidence that they will die unless they have it. So the story is changing: they just want it, so they should be able to get it.

More to the point, society itself has been subject to this consent engineering. We have been sold the patent medical fraud that some identifiable cohort of people is ‘born in the wrong body’ and will benefit from ‘gender medicine.’

This latest study could not find a cohort that experienced clear benefits because no such cohort exists. That is the same finding that the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic cited when they closed down in 1979. Reality did not change. The evolved ‘engineering’ of human bodies remains immutable.

Instead, activists engineered a social-political shift on ‘transgender medicine.’ They claimed that our participation in the adopted ‘identity’ is a magic pill that cures what the surgeries and hormones cannot. When the spell doesn’t work, they blame society. But society is not the problem. The medical fraud of ‘sex change’ is the entire problem.