I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!
I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!
May I please share a few thoughts here?
I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!
May I please share a few thoughts here?
I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!