The Elephant in the LGBTQ+ Room: The prevalence of mental illness among transgender population and Informed Consent

I am an expert at identifying Systemic Failure. There are certain red flags that can inform people that a systemic failure is in progress. One of them is the suppression or punishment of reasoned dissent. [See note below]

I have been documenting for a while, ever since I posted a Public Safety Announcement for kids [1], that Twitter has a biased approach to enforcing adherence to its rules [2]. The announcement I posted simply stated the facts: (1) cutting off healthy body parts is mentally ill [3] and (2) transgenderism is about adhering to strict gender roles [4]. Walking away from that account, I began to use another account to start testing for what was the primary offense in these factual statements. Then I found it. It wasn’t until I stumbled across a Twitter bot working to deplatform tweets that I clued in on the one topic that the transgender population absolutely cannot discuss: mental illness. I tweeted a medical research article talking about 58% of the transgender patients having mental illness [5]. The tweet was immediately placed into Twitter’s form of disciplinary mode for “harassment” or “hate speech”. Why would medical research be considered hate speech? What does this mean? Mental illness. Transgender people must not hear about the mental illnesses that plague their numbers.

So let’s talk about that.

Informed Consent
I think the real core of the matter is the question of Informed Consent for medical treatment. How can someone with a mental illness truly give Informed Consent for a medical treatment that is experimental and with uncertain probability of success [6]? This question has a historical basis from among the medical field’s greatest crimes [7]. There are other mentally ill people who want to cut off healthy body parts, too, but they are not permitted to do it [8].

So what exactly is the rate and nature of mental illnesses among “transgender” people? I would add “queer” and what-not to the list as well, but these new flavors of gender-role-adherence have not been studied at all in comparison to the paltry data that exists on trans [9]; for now let’s assume they are also mentally ill, because (a) the cutting off healthy body parts solution to their problems is still there [10] and (b) deciding people using not-preferred pro-nouns is hate speech when they occupy more than two lines is not rational [11].

So lets start with Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). “Autistic people are said to have difficulties with social interactions, and to show rigid and repetitive behaviours and interests. They are also likely to have unusual responses to sensory input, including high or low sensitivity, auditory processing, sensory discrimination, and sensory-based motor impairments”, which impairs certain types of important processes in making decisions [12]. Would cutting off healthy body parts on a mentally disabled person be ethical? No, just no, it absolutely is not [13]. So red flag #1: a large proportion of the transgender population is autistic [14].

Now lets talk about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A lot of people with “body dymorphia disorder…characterized by a distressing or impairing preoccupation with an imagined or slight defect in appearance” have PTSD [15]. So if someone is suffering from PTSD, would cutting off their healthy body parts be ethical? No, it absolutely is not [16]. So red flag #2: a large proportion of the transgender population has PTSD [17].

Now let’s talk about the internet, social media, and it’s ability to fester mental illness in previously healthy users [18]. As I previously discussed, the increase in transgenderism among teen girls is exponentially growing and while its cause has not been statistically determined, there is sufficient evidence to suspect the internet [19]. So let us return to the transgender medicine question for this population, which includes young adults [20]. If someone suddenly has a mental problem that they have never shown before, say multiple-personality disorder, does it make sense to medicate them? In the case of schizophrenia disorder for example, there are medical tests that can be done to determine, yes, this person is sick with something that can be treated with medicine [21]. In the case of these teens and young adults? No. No, there is no medical test that can confirm that they are transgender [22]. In fact, transgender is not even agreed on for a definition of a disorder [23]. So should you medicate something that cannot be measured and its very basis as a diagnosis is not measured either? The answer is no. NO. If there is no medical measurement that can be made, then it is not a medical problem. Well then, what kind of problem is it? Mental illness? Hello. So there are plenty of reasons to assume that “transgenderism” is a mental illness.

So what is going on here?

Let us assume that the vast majority of “transgender” people are mentally ill. The definition of “denial” is “An unconscious defense mechanism used to allay anxiety by denying the existence of important conflicts, troublesome impulses, events, actions, or illness.” [24]. I propose that Twitter’s policy enforcement and indeed the enforcement of multiple platforms frequented by the “transgender” population preventing the discussion of their mental illnesses is the practice of psychological denial insofar as the objections of that population are concerned.

So how do we examine this? The first task is to call on these platforms to defend their enforcement policies. “Twitter, why is posting a scientific article on the prevalence of mental illness among transgender people a form of harassment or hate speech?” In addition to the Parasitic Excuse (more on that in a bit), a person or group of persons in denial will simply reply that asking the question is harassment or hate speech; it’s the I’m-the-victim-here approach. Or in addition to the Parasitic Excuse, they also could attempt to bypass the question, such as attacking the messenger, “That is not the issue, the user that posted the comment has been in violation of the policy and this is not a genuine attempt at dialogue”, or engage in the credential debate, “Our experts have examined the literature and found that the research is misinformation” (notice that the offenses thus far have not reflected this one). The key phrase to look for after the Parasitic Excuse is actually quite mundane, “A sufficient number of our users reacted to the language, therefore, we determined it to be harassment or hate speech.”

Say hello to the golden idol.

While examining these various companies, Twitter is not alone, for how exactly they arrived at their discussing-transgenderism-through-the-lense-of-mental-illness-is-bad policies, a major component to appreciate is profit. The lifetime medicalization of transgender people has multiple corporate euphamisms for its profitability, such as “longitudinal”, and is estimated to be worth $Billions [25]. If transgender medicine is the unethical practice of cutting off healthy body parts, sterilizing, and causing extensive damage to mentally ill people who could not be expected to give Informed Consent, then the companies that sustain this practice will lose money. And not just money if governments via their citizens come to the conclusion that this practice was criminal. A response from a company like Twitter that they based their decisions on their customer base puts them square in the we-don’t-want-to-lose-profit box. Remember the earlier discussion about teenagers and young people becoming mentally ill through the internet? Guess where Twitter’s profitability lies.

Cut out healthy body parts, sterilizing, and causing extensive damage to mentally ill people. Mentally ill people are quite capable of zealous community building [26]. And that can be profitable.

Finally, let us wrap up with acknowledging the Parasitic Excuse, which has been quite effective in silencing everyone in the mental health field in truly diagnosing and treating “transgenderism”. As I introduce the historical context, keep in mind that “transgenderism” is the singular greatest threat faced by the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) communities [27]. In fact, in realizing that sterilizing gay kids and disabling their ability to sexually function as adults, “transgender” has been compared to the AIDs crises by myself and others for decimating their numbers. So here’s the history: one of the major battles in LGB rights has been to stop diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness [28]. Incidentally, “transvestism” was another. Anyways, here’s the dichotomy in the thinking. The mental illness classification battle was about enabling LGB people to accept their bodies’ natural sexuality. If you flip that around, “transgenderism” is about making one’s body fit a mental gender role. And that’s why I call it “Parasitic”. The gender role that most homosexual people feel they need to fit is that bit about becoming heterosexual. Many in the community call this “conversion therapy”. Or as one author bluntly put it, “Would you rather have a trans daughter or an effeminate gay son?” [29]. In summary, the Parasitic Excuse does not hold up to close examination. Studying “transgenderism” as a mental illness is valid, and mental health professionals should stop tap dancing around the obvious.

This article was originally published in ; however, possibly in compliance with the “Trans Journalist Association Style Guide“, it was removed. I have inquired by what measure this material was judged, why I was completely shut out of the process, exactly what complaints were received, etc. Past experience has shown that a response is unlikely as they have taken a position that is difficult to defend. Also note that women are far more likely to be silenced.

[25]–detailed-analysis-of-top-companies-business-opportunities-and-challenges-forthcoming-developments-and-demand-forecast-to-2025-2022-01-18 [recently taken down for some reason]

More supporting references:
“Gender-Corrective Surgery Promoting Mental Health in Persons With Gender Dysphoria Not Supported by Data Presented in Article”
“Understanding Vulnerability in Girls and Young Women with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder”
“The current gender-affirming care model in BC is unvalidated and outdated”
“Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists “emotional instability” as a side effect and warns prescribers to “monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.”
“The Great Deception”
“Other Known Causes for Gender Dysphoria”

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top