I found the link to this study along with a copy of the paper at Transgendernews, a yahoo group. Here’s the link.
http://www.intersexualite.org/Zucker_boys.html
I think you’ll find it quite enlightning about Zucker’s real agenda, but you should read it and make up your own mind.
Amber
Filed under: Commentary, Education, News, Transgender | Tagged: autogynephilia, awareness, blanchard, gender dysphoria, gender identity, GID, lawrence, psychiatry, reparative therapy, transexual, Transgender, transsexual, zucker |
TRANScend GENDER 
Very good reading, Amber. Especially in its application to me. I would definitely argue that much of what the author discussed about those not diagosed with GID at an early age were the ones who presented for SRS later on. Most of that applied to me to a tee.
Took me a while to read it, but I hope others who were trying to learn (or end up being misinformed) about autogynephilia look to these possible diagnoses and treatments.
Isn’t that interesting? It just may not be just about sex after all?
I didn’t realize how shady that so called docter actually is until I read this article! Can you imagine how many kids he’s messed up with his so called “therapy”?
I also didn’t realize how close to normal I am as a typical transsexual, with my onset at puberty and the general confusion about what was wrong.
Actually, I think the so called doctor knows all the things that this article exposes and uses it anyway for his own financial gain. I suspect that he’s transphobic, to knowingly treat people that way. Or, maybe it’s all about the money and power, I don’t know. Either way, we’re the ones who get short changed.
You’re right Lori, it’s not about sex, and the doctor knows that too.
OMG – Here we go “experts” defining transsexuals again. OK I wrote a response in a word processer and it was too huge so I posted it on my WP site for those interested.
For those who want the basics it can be summed up in the two immortal words of Charlie Brown, “good grief”!
It’s a very slanted “paper” on Zucker. I wish there were a review of his work presented with more intellectual honesty than what I’ve seen coming out of the more reactionary parts of the trans community lately.
I dunno Kynn, I thought the references given at the end of the article were pretty well researched. As for balanced, it’s hard to be balanced with this research information, it just puts him in a bad light.
References aren’t the same thing as balanced reporting; I mean, Michelle Malkin’s and Ann Coulter’s books are notoriously full of footnotes, but that doesn’t mean they’re honest.
I mean, the first 19 footnotes are not references to Zucker’s work. The paper cites 31 footnotes, but only 4 of them are to Zucker’s work, while the majority are to other peoples’ work.
Many times throughout the article, references are made to varioius people as “Zucker’s colleague” which is an attempt to ascribe their beliefs to Zucker — but that is an intellectually dishonest attempt. People with whom the article’s author disagrees are labeled Zucker’s “colleagues” (repeatedly), but when the author agrees with them, they become Zucker’s “peers.”
Also, trying to use Bailey’s non-scientific text to prove or disprove anything scientific about someone else’s beliefs — instead of going by their published work — is folly, especially given the low regard in which the Bailey popular text is held.
Furthermore, the author accuses Zucker of fabricating data — a highly serious charge — and then doesn’t provide any proof of this whatsoever beyond the accusation. Look carefully — he’s got no proof for that. Even the supposedly shady use of statistics (which I don’t see, honestly) is not even close to manufacturing scientific data.
At the end, the author of the article tells us how “outraged” various people should be, by Zucker “victimizing” and “pathologizing” groups of whoever. However, the author certainly has not made the case that Zucker is doing any such thing with this piece, which amounts to a lot of fury and rage and accusation — with no proof whatsoever that would allow an intelligent reader to make a rational, independent decision about Zucker.
I was worried about Zucker when his name first came up. But since then, I’ve been more worried about the way that the transgender community has piled on to smear him. If he can’t be fairly “convicted” by his own actions and words, and intellectually dishonest arguments are all that are presented, then maybe he’s not really so bad after all, you know?
If I’m not mistaken, it’s the relevance of the other people’s work that this paper is based on. It’s how several other studies dispute what Zucker bases his theories on. If those other studies that dispute Zucker’s theories aren’t relevant to the discussion, then the whole article is invalid. If the other studies are valid, then someone’s playing games for personal gain. The entire paper, and the accusations made in the paper, are based on those other studies. It’s hard to be balanced with information like this to examine.
Of course, I just realized that I did say “make up your own mind”, and here I am, trying to argue my own point of view.
I apologize for that!
come do the interview on my blog..