Why do bigots lie about what they read?

From here

Two part Genderanalysis article: Florida Department of Health Guidance Against Transgender Youth Healthcare Contains False Statements and Misrepresentations and Should Not Be Used by Anyone (Part 1, Part 2). The list of Zach’s complains:

First off I should point out that there are three parts.

  • The Guideline misrepresents brief opinion pieces from individual authors in Catholic and psychoanalytic journals as constituting reliable literature reviews.
  • The Guideline does not source its injunction against social transition (when in fact it does; Zach is the one who misrepresented his opponent).

OK, where was this cited then? Why can’t you show it?

  • Zach then faults Hruz, when he argues for the efficiency psychotherapy alone in treatment of gender confusion, for misrepresenting a book chapter he cites. I am ambivalent about Zach’s argument: prima facie , there may not indeed be enough evidence for psychotherapy alone (but that’s because clinicians are forbid from doing such studies). However, even the source Zach cites against Hruz acknowledges that “some patients reported a disappearance of the wish for [sexual reassignment], when no psychotherapy was given.” and “Remission had occurred with or without treatment and in response to various life events and co-morbid psychopathology.”

Cite the whole thing:

In a recent study five cases were described of adults who were diagnosed with gender identity disorder and who showed occasional remission in gender dysphoria (Marks et al., 2000). Remission had occurred with or without treatment and in response to various life events and co-morbid psychopathology.


However, resolution of their gender identity conflict as a consequence of psychotherapeutic treatment seems highly unlikely, since remission of the gender dysphoria in these cases, apparently, was temporary. The fact of the matter is that the gender dysphoria in all of the five cases described in the study had returned to such an extent that the subjects had resumed cross-gender living, and all but one had started or resumed hormone treatment.

Liar, liar.

  • Hruz cites Kenneth Zucker, whom transsexuals hate. Contra Hruz, Zach reads out of Zucker an explicit approval of “gender affirmation for adolescent trans youth, including social and medical transition”. Zucker’s position is, however, based on the perceived risk of detransition, which is poorly known thanks to the injunction against clinical research. I quote Zucker “IF the clinical consensus is that a particular adolescent is very much likely to persist down a pathway toward hormonal and sex-reassignment surgery, then our therapeutic approach is one that supports this pathway on the grounds that it will lead to a better psychosocial adaptation and quality of life” (emphasis mine). Note the conditional “If”: Zucker believes gender-confused “adolescences” is to be affirmed if “adolescences” are less likely to desist than “children”.

Zinna adresses this:

Zucker et al. are also deliberately ambiguous and qualitative in their descriptions of treatment “success” or “failure” or “in between” , and openly question whether resolution in favor of cisgender identity is even a successful outcome: