The fact that Jack Turban’s most recent studies, sourced in online survey responses from “trans youth,” are so cooked that he doesn’t know who is responding, is truly significant to the historic study of the evolution of the field of “sexology.” The entire mental health sector is captured and corrupted by the pharma money infused there, through “workshops” and “trainings” on “trans health care,” as well as the funding of individuals such as Jack Turban, a long-time promoter of cross-sex ideology. His studies are not valid, and should never be cited as proof of any phenomena.
A recent Wall Street Journal article revealed the facts on Jack Turban, his corrupt and faulty methods. I can’t copy in its entirety here, as I do not have a subscription, but here’s the first paragraph, by Julie Mason and Leor Sapir, dated August 17:
“A spate of headlines this month declared that America’s surge in transgender identification wasn’t being caused by a social contagion. These articles were prompted by a new study by Jack Turban and colleagues in Pediatrics, flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The study claimed that social influence isn’t the reason that as many as 9% of America’s youth now call themselves transgender. Thus, Dr. Turban argues, efforts in conservative states to regulate on-demand puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery must be resisted.” The article continues to reveal the facts I wrote above, which are that he does not know which cross-sex way his respondents are claiming to be–the girls who think they are boys say they are male. Turban’s premise that the increase in girls is a myth is not true; the boys he claims are in the majority are girls saying they are boys. No research from this kind of online recruitment can be taken seriously.
I know that my ex-husband, Neddy’s, “true life test” of whether the diagnosis in one appointment was “stable” and valid involved trips into bars on Eighth Street in The Village (lower Manhattan, gay center of the world, outside of San Francisco). As he wrote in his three sketchbooks in situ, on the barstools, documenting the glasses of wine other men offered to pay for, whether they seemed to think he was actually female, with details about how he’d done his hair that night, how he didn’t want to go home to us. “Us” being his unsuspecting wife, who’d been told he’s at the library at NYU, for the MBA he was working on, and his two young unsuspecting sons, ages 6 months and 3 and a half.
He missed innumerable beautiful baths and bedtimes. I’d be asleep next to my 3 year old, sitting next to his bed, my upper body resting next to his sweet head on the pillow. He had a twin bed futon, so I’d sit on the floor and fall asleep with him, since I still got up to nurse our baby at night. Thus, the concept of “true life” by cross-dressing while your wife feeds and nurtures the children is debunked, in one simple paragraph, by yours truly, Ute Heggen.
The hate and resentment Neddy had for his parents, so much more intensified when he became a father, is the what-to-talk-about bit for the shrinks. Because, I saw that, I felt it, I was also the target of that anger. His mother didn’t stop his father from whipping him and the next child, as very young children, about 6 and 4, and well, his father did that. I’m not saying this small woman, under 5 feet tall, weighing about 98 pounds could have prevented her 28 year old husband from being so violent, but she did have a few choices. I witnessed Neddy’s rage at them both, usually a simmering miasma, the deep disconnect in his eyes.
Turban is very busy responding to his critics on twitter, calling us all right-wing transphobes. Who funds his supposedly neutral, unbiased “research?”
Leor Sapir in City-Journal, where Christopher Rufo also publishes, wrote about the propagandistic approach the Biden administration has taken on “affirmative care” (With no recognition of the army of detransitioners or women such as myself, treated to mother erasure.) Jack Turban is cited at the end.
From Leor Sapir, City-Journal, this summer:
The idea that it is unscientific and unethical to use psychotherapy as the default treatment for gender dysphoria is demonstrably wrong. The original Dutch Protocol, which laid the foundations for pediatric gender transition, insisted on lengthy psychological prescreening of candidates before prescribing them puberty-blocking drugs. What the Dutch experts knew then, and what researchers know now with even greater confidence, is that minors seeking transition tend to have extraordinarily high rates of mental-health problems, including anxiety, depression, attention-deficit and eating disorders, and autism. The intuition here is simple: if kids are going to give consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone injections, they should first be determined to be mentally stable and competent. The psychological co-morbidities clinicians across the West are used to seeing in (mostly female) teenagers who show up for gender-transition procedures typically precede cross-gender identification and are thought to be in themselves the main causes of suicidality—the dreaded outcome that proponents of the affirm-only approach believe justifies allowing minors to consent to life-altering medical interventions. Existing studies provide no evidence that affirming reduces suicidality, and a new study shows limited evidence that it might worsen the problem.
Affirm-only advocates like to say that their approach has the endorsement of “all major medical associations.” As critics have pointed out, however, the statements of these associations against psychotherapy are based on an egregious misreading of the evidence. For example, when the American Academy of Pediatrics denounced non-affirming approaches as “conversion therapy” in 2018, it based that conclusion entirely on studies done on homosexuality and omitted all relevant studies on youth gender dysphoria. It even interpreted one study as supporting the affirm-only approach, despite the fact that that study explicitly recommended “watchful waiting” (psychotherapy). No one with even superficial familiarity with the politics of gender medicine can take seriously the claim that there is an evidence-grounded consensus in favor of affirmation.
Not only that, but over the past two years medical authorities in Australia, Finland, France, the U.K., and Sweden have recommended severe limitations on affirming therapy, insisting that the evidence for this approach is tenuous at best. The Biden administration is strengthening its commitment to affirming therapy at precisely the moment when the world’s most progressive welfare states are becoming more restrained about the practice.
It’s perhaps no coincidence that on the same day the Biden administration made its announcement, the New York Times Magazine ran a long article acknowledging, for the first time, that affirm-only therapy is controversial among medical experts. The article was by no means as rigorous or as fair as it could have been. Its author, Emily Bazelon, characterizes all opposition to affirming therapy as “right wing,” even as objections have come from feminists, gay rights advocates, and even transgender activists themselves. She acknowledges the role that “social influence” might play in shaping teen identity but vastly underestimates the findings of recent years in regard to “social contagion.” She also understates the growing skepticism within the research community over the safety and reliability of “social transition” and puberty blockers.
Still, Bazelon’s article marks a welcome departure from the newspaper’s previous approach, which framed the debate over pediatric transition as one between enlightened experts and knuckle-dragging bigots. It emphasizes that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is slated to revise its Standards of Care this summer by adding, among other things, a requirement for psychological prescreening of adolescents prior to giving them puberty blockers. Because the premise of the affirm-only approach is that prescreening means questioning the veracity of a minor’s identity, even the WPATH seems to be moving to the right of the White House.
The sense of betrayal over the Times piece among gender-affirming trans activists is palpable—and revealing. These activists regard dissemination of their ideology by the nation’s leading public opinion organs as an entitlement; they have zero tolerance for dissent. As Bazelon reports, when transgender doctor Erica Anderson voiced concerns about how the affirm-only approach is driving “sloppy, dangerous care” and agreed to speak to Abigail Shrier, author of Irreversible Damage, the U.S. branch of WPATH censured her and imposed a month-long moratorium on speaking to the “lay press” (read: those who are not mouthpieces for the gender-affirming cohort). In preparation for her article, Bazelon sought an interview with Jack Turban, a medical doctor, zealous partisan of affirm-only, and author of two (largely debunked but still widely cited) studies purporting to show that puberty blockers are suicide-prevention measures. Turban declined, however, claiming through his spokesperson that he “didn’t have time to talk.”
UteHeggen~GrassWidow 