Transgender Woman Blames Murders on Former Male Self

cornflake said:

Let her try that one in court. The number of psychological professionals who believe that possible is very small compared the number who believe it is not, and have the studies to back that up.

Even if someone believed that, she'd have to have quite the history of not knowing things, which I suspect doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thankfully as psychiatry/psychology has gradually moved away from all the lunacy that is psychoanalytic theory, and the impetus case that basically invented dissociative identity disorder has been exposed as complete bullshit invented solely to make money, the number of professionals in the field that give any credibility at all to those fake disorders is rapidly decreasing (I'm not saying the presenting symptoms don't exist and don't distress the individual, I'm saying that the previous theoretical explanations for them - rooted in psychoanalytic ideas - are way off base).

Goodbye "repressed memories." Goodbye "multiple personalities." Good riddance made up bullshit predicated upon disproven theories of the supposed "unconscious."

Opty, I don't think I can agree with that article. The syble case may of been a fraud, but that doesn't mean the disorder isn't real. The article seemed to be saying it wasn't a real psychiatric illness, which isn't for the author of the book who was being interviewed to decide.

I do feel though that this can and will in some ways hurt transgender rights as a cause by giving the community a bad name. Thrusting negative light onto people that our society already feels so much hatred towards. I don't feel that she should be allowed to use it as part of her defense.

Lillith1991 said:

Opty, I don't think I can agree with that article. The syble case may of been a fraud, but that doesn't mean the disorder is real. The article seemed to be saying it wasn't a real psychiatric illness, which isn't for the author of the book who was being interviewed to decide.

I do feel though that this can and will in some ways hurt transgender rights as a cause by giving the community a bad name. Thrusting negative light onto people that our society already feels so much hatred towards. I don't feel that she should be allowed to use it as part of her defense.

Click to expand...

Read the book. It goes into detail about the notes from "Sybil's" psychiatrist indicating that the motivation for the diagnosis was greed/notoriety and that much of Sybil's presenting symptoms were actually iatrogenic.

Her case is what spurred the sudden outbreak of diagnoses,which, IMHO, were nothing more than confirmation bias and iatrogenesis.

Changing one's gender is obviously a major transition, but I assume the same person still resides at the core of who she is. You can argue that a cisgendered person who committed murders a decade or more before, and who has subsequently changed his or her ways, isn't the same person they were when they committed the crime either, but the law doesn't generally make that an allowable excuse. Presumably she was in good enough touch with reality to know murder was wrong back then. I don't think this defense is going to hold any water.

And honestly, I don't think it should. I have the utmost respect for people who are transgendered and the struggles they go through every day. But murder is still murder. If they can demonstrate legal insanity (which has a whole set of very exacting criteria that go beyond simply being mentally ill), people can be acquitted for murder, or at the very least, not tried for it. But when that happens, they're usually institutionalized. And these sound like very deliberate, gruesome and premeditated murders too.

Lillith1991 said:

I do feel though that this can and will in some ways hurt transgender rights as a cause by giving the community a bad name. Thrusting negative light onto people that our society already feels so much hatred towards. I don't feel that she should be allowed to use it as part of her defense.

Click to expand...

I think this is a very real concern too. The last thing people who are transgendered need floating around is the idea that it makes people into murderers.

Opty said:

Read the book. It goes into detail about the notes from "Sybil's" psychiatrist indicating that the motivation for the diagnosis was greed/notoriety and that much of Sybil's presenting symptoms were actually iatrogenic.

Her case is what spurred the sudden outbreak of diagnoses,which, IMHO, were nothing more than confirmation bias and iatrogenesis.

Click to expand...

That may be, and I'm sure you're right about it spurring inaccurate diagnoses. But, that doesn't mean the disorder itself isn't real. Which is the opinion I'm seeing being presented by the author of the article, and the person being interviewed. Neither have the authority to say it isn't a real diagnosis. Especially when it comes to a disorder that's part of an exceedingly hard group of disorders to diagnose.

Ambrosia said:

Cornflake,

If I were her lawyer, you wouldn't be on the jury.

Click to expand...

Heh, okie. My point was that if this is actually the defense plan, I don't suspect it'll go well, as it seems it'd be simple to derail.

Lillith1991 said:

That may be, and I'm sure you're right about it spurring inaccurate diagnoses. But, that doesn't mean the disorder itself isn't real. Which is the opinion I'm seeing being presented by the author of the article, and the person being interviewed. Neither have the authority to say it isn't a real diagnosis. Especially when it comes to a disorder that's part of an exceedingly hard group of disorders to diagnose.

Click to expand...

That the disorder itself isn't real is the prevailing opinion in the community and has been for some time. It's not based on one case, at all. There are numerous studies, papers, etc., looking at this. Same as the repressed memory thing - there are dozens of papers detailing, very specifically, how and why it came to be known that this was not a thing. People traced back case after case, examined transcripts, etc.,looked at all the different aspects of the phenomena, on and on. Psychologists don't decide something that was generally accepted was completely not happening based on a single incident, or close. There's decades of study involved.

cornflake said:

That the disorder itself isn't real is the prevailing opinion in the community and has been for some time. It's not based on one case, at all. There are numerous studies, papers, etc., looking at this. Same as the repressed memory thing - there are dozens of papers detailing, very specifically, how and why it came to be known that this was not a thing. People traced back case after case, examined transcripts, etc.,looked at all the different aspects of the phenomena, on and on. Psychologists don't decide something that was generally accepted was completely not happening based on a single incident, or close. There's decades of study involved.

Click to expand...

If the disorder doesn't exist, then what is the new diagnosis for people who exhibit multiple personalities? Is it considered just another form of psychosis?

I lived with someone who sometimes lost time during episodes when she was completely unaware of herself, so at least symptoms resembling dissociation exist.

kuwisdelu said:

If the disorder doesn't exist, then what is the new diagnosis for people who exhibit multiple personalities? Is it considered just another form of psychosis?

I lived with someone who sometimes lost time during episodes when she was completely unaware of herself, so at least symptoms resembling dissociation exist.

Click to expand...

I would like to know this to. What's the new diagnosis for the people showing symptoms of the disorder, if there is one? Is it still included in the dsm?

Dissociation doesn't necessarily equate to multiple personalities. Nearly *everyone* dissociates to some degree; that's kind of what daydreaming is. Mentally removing yourself from a situation.

In some cases, that dissociation/mental removal interferes with normal functioning. That level of dissociation is often connected with PTSD, and can appear with other mental illnesses. The person loses track of time, doesn't remember events and conversations, might find themselves in another location from the last place they remember being with no memory of how they got there, etc. It's pretty dang terrifying. (National Alliance on Mental Illness if anyone's looking for more info.)

That isn't to say that everyone with a dissociative disorder has dissociative *identity* disorder (multiple personalities). Those cases are more rare. I think they do exist; the parent of a student I worked with when I was teaching had been diagnosed with multiple personalities. But they're a lot more rare than the Sibyl/Truddi Chase/etc. books and media attention had led the public to believe.

That isn't saying I necessarily believe "Doug" was an entirely separate personality from "Donna"; only that I find it plausible that the murders were committed during dissociative states. Prior to gender reassignment, "Doug" may not have retained memories of the crimes either, if he'd dissociated at the time. And that also isn't saying I don't believe Donna should be held responsible for the crimes, but there may well be basis for a "mental disease or defect" (as they put it on Law & Order) defense.

Well it does also seem like we are looking at rehabilitation versus punishment. If Donna is no longer dangerous after transition (and can somehow prove it), then doing anything to her would be pointless and be robbing society of one productive person. If it's about punishment, well, she still killed people.

kuwisdelu said:

If the disorder doesn't exist, then what is the new diagnosis for people who exhibit multiple personalities?

Click to expand...

Or people who forget traumatic events that did actually happen, and then remember them later? Since repressed memory is "not a thing"?

Hapax Legomenon said:

Well it does also seem like we are looking at rehabilitation versus punishment. If Donna is no longer dangerous after transition (and can somehow prove it), then doing anything to her would be pointless and be robbing society of one productive person. If it's about punishment, well, she still killed people.

Click to expand...

That's an important distinction. The current social trend is to regard imprisonment etc. as punishment or restitution you do for a crime you commited, not simply something we do to make society safer, and certainly not something that provides an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Given that this is the case, I don't think this woman's defense stands much of a chance.

Unless it can be proven that she was incapable of understanding the nature of the crimes and their consequences when she committed them (aka was legally insane).

Celia Cyanide said:

Or people who forget traumatic events that did actually happen, and then remember them later? Since repressed memory is "not a thing"?

Click to expand...

My take on the false memory thing was not that people never, ever have repressed memories of trauma. It's that there was a period of time when it was really fashionable to assume that every case of anxiety, depression etc. resulted from past trauma that the patient had buried (which wasn't usually the case). Therapists can implant memories of trauma that never existed if they use the techniques that were once in vogue. They were essentially leading their patients down a path and convincing them to "remember" abuse that hadn't actually happened in some cases. the strange thing was how vivid these false memories could be. This caused some serious harm, needless to say.

It also taught us how memory is not simply a tape recording inside your head. It's a malleable thing that's constantly being reconstructed and modified as we revisit and reinterpret it.

I'm often amazed at how different my mom's views of things that happened when I was a kid are, even just for simple, non traumatic events.

Celia Cyanide said:

Or people who forget traumatic events that did actually happen, and then remember them later? Since repressed memory is "not a thing"?

Click to expand...

They don't. People can have a temporary amnesia based in physical trauma, but like the forgetting molestation and remembering it later? Not a thing.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Well it does also seem like we are looking at rehabilitation versus punishment. If Donna is no longer dangerous after transition (and can somehow prove it), then doing anything to her would be pointless and be robbing society of one productive person. If it's about punishment, well, she still killed people.

Click to expand...

Imprisonment has multiple purposes, among them punishment, rehabilitation, removal from society, protection for society, etc. It's not a single thing. Regardless, if she's convicted, then she'd be imprisoned. There's not a 'guilty of murder but not dangerous so we'll let you go free.'

There's not guilty by reason of insanity, or, in some places, guilty but insane, but those aren't the same as guilty.

cornflake said:

They don't. People can have a temporary amnesia based in physical trauma, but like the forgetting molestation and remembering it later? Not a thing.

Click to expand...

Can you cite this?

Celia Cyanide said:

Can you cite this?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Some science.

Elizabeth Loftus, the dean of memory science, explains how the traditional, dramatic, 'recovered memory' stuff happens.

Two articles explaining that the cases in which there was likely actual abuse that was "not remembered" are actually cases in which someone didn't want to think about it for a period, claimed they didn't remember, though they'd discussed it with other people, or didn't remember and then did the same way people remember other, non-traumatic childhood events, because the abuse was not experienced as traumatic.

The pop culture recovered memory of abuse thing, that led to a parade of court cases (followed by a parade of recantations and proof of falsehood and other such McMartin-esque drama), not a thing.

cornflake said:

or didn't remember and then did the same way people remember other, non-traumatic childhood events, because the abuse was not experienced as traumatic.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that imply that if someone doesn't remember something then it must not have been traumatic? Because I don't buy that.

I agree that the media-spun pop culture versions of these disorders probably don't exist. But similar symptoms clearly do.

I worry that people are too quick to totally dismiss anything that remotely resembles them.

kuwisdelu said:

Doesn't that imply that if someone doesn't remember something then it must not have been traumatic? Because I don't buy that.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does seem to imply that. I already know how false memories are created, but I don't buy it either.

cornflake said:

Yes.

Some science.

Elizabeth Loftus, the dean of memory science, explains how the traditional, dramatic, 'recovered memory' stuff happens.

Two articles explaining that the cases in which there was likely actual abuse that was "not remembered" are actually cases in which someone didn't want to think about it for a period, claimed they didn't remember, though they'd discussed it with other people, or didn't remember and then did the same way people remember other, non-traumatic childhood events, because the abuse was not experienced as traumatic.

The pop culture recovered memory of abuse thing, that led to a parade of court cases (followed by a parade of recantations and proof of falsehood and other such McMartin-esque drama), not a thing.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Those types of situations (i.e. "not remembering" traumatic events) are often cases of what's sometimes referred to as "non-Freudian directed forgetting," where the person chooses (willfully) to not think about something, directing their attention immediately elsewhere when/if a memory of the event comes up. Theoretically, the memory might eventually become less easily accessible, but it is in no way "repressed" or "suppressed" in the so-called "unconscious." The person just doesn't want to think about it and actively denies the memory as a way of coping.

Lillith1991 said:

I would like to know this to. What's the new diagnosis for the people showing symptoms of the disorder, if there is one? Is it still included in the dsm?

Click to expand...

Attention-seeking behavior combined with a gullible therapist who eats psychoanalytic bullshit sandwiches for breakfast each day and shares them with his/her patient.

cornflake said:

Yes.

Some science.

Elizabeth Loftus, the dean of memory science, explains how the traditional, dramatic, 'recovered memory' stuff happens.

Two articles explaining that the cases in which there was likely actual abuse that was "not remembered" are actually cases in which someone didn't want to think about it for a period, claimed they didn't remember, though they'd discussed it with other people, or didn't remember and then did the same way people remember other, non-traumatic childhood events, because the abuse was not experienced as traumatic.

The pop culture recovered memory of abuse thing, that led to a parade of court cases (followed by a parade of recantations and proof of falsehood and other such McMartin-esque drama), not a thing.

Click to expand...

You are basing your arguments off of Loftus? She is a big false memory camp proponent. Her studies do not negate all the excellent work done by other professionals in the field who have investigated memory issues and found repressed memories and amnesia legitimate. You may want to do a little research about this woman, her beliefs, and her studies before you parade her as your banner.

Here is a report on the Libby trial in 2006 where Loftus was attempting to become the memory expert for the trial. It may give you some insights into your expert.

No memory expert for Libby trial

At a hearing last week, Libby's defense team brought out the first witness in their case, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, who tried to persuade Judge Walton that a memory expert was essential in the Libby trial.

But after nearly three-hours of methodical cross-examination by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Dr. Loftus found it difficult at times even to explain her own writings. Fitzgerald had her backing away from her earlier assertions on memory. And the Special Counsel got Loftus to acknowledge - after citing several of her publications and methodology - that some of her own research was not that scientific, and that her conclusions about memory were conflicting.

Click to expand...

Here is some info on Dissociative Disorders

author Idan Sharon, MD Consulting Staff, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Cornell New York Methodist Hospital; Private Practice

Idan Sharon, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology and Medical Society of the State of New York

Click to expand...

Here is the current diagnostic "bible" definition for dissociative identity disorder (and believe me if the majority of psychiatrists did not believe it existed, it wouldn't be in this manual):

DSM-5

Opty said:

Attention-seeking behavior combined with a gullible therapist who eats psychoanalytic bullshit sandwiches for breakfast each day and shares them with his/her patient.

Click to expand...

And your explanation to those of us who personally know people who have had similar symptoms? Are we all just gullible idiots?

kuwisdelu said:

And your explanation to those of us who personally know people who have had similar symptoms? Are we all just gullible idiots?

Click to expand...

Of course not and the only person I said was gullible was the diagnosing therapist. I also never called anyone an idiot, so stop taking it so personally.

Let me clarify that what I've been saying is just my opinion and anyone is free to disagree, though it'd be nice (and I'd be more receptive to their opinion) if they disagree because they've studied/researched this at length, and not simply googled shit on the interwebs (that's not directed at anyone here. Just a general statement reflective of how a lot of Internet debaters operate).

Some psychiatrists follow or are influenced by Freudian concepts, even though many (if not most) of those ideas are horribly wrong and misguided.

Therefore, they're more susceptible to believing in DID rather than looking for alternate, research-based explanations. If they believe in such a fantastical thing, and the patient already believes it (because of its pop culture popularity. I'm still adamant in my stance that DID didn't exist until some huckster invented it), then there's a strong likelihood for iatrogenesis.

It's natural for the patient to accept the doctor's opinion based on perceived authority and to subconsciously run with whatever the doc says. It's also likely that friends of that person will also accept the doctor's opinions based on perceived authority.

It's not the patient or their loved ones who are gullible. It's the person who diagnoses the DID.

Opty said:

It's not the patient or their loved ones who are gullible. It's the person who diagnoses the DID.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I don't understand you correctly. By saying the disorder doesn't exist, are you also saying the symptoms don't exist? That the psychosis and dissociation is made up? Otherwise, how would the therapist be gullible, but not the loved ones who believe the symptoms are real? Wouldn't they be equally as gullible?

Ambrosia said:

You are basing your arguments off of Loftus? She is a big false memory camp proponent. Her studies do not negate all the excellent work done by other professionals in the field who have investigated memory issues and found repressed memories and amnesia legitimate. You may want to do a little research about this woman, her beliefs, and her studies before you parade her as your banner.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd suggest that you do a little more research on her. Dr. Loftus is the most influential female psychologist of the past few decades. She IS an expert in memory (which, admittedly, is a lot like being an expert in dark matter because we understand it about as well as we truly understand memory). And, of course she's in the false memory "camp" because false memory implantation is her main research focus (or at least used to be. Not sure about now as I haven't really read any of her stuff in years).

As to your claims about so-called "excellent work done by other professionals in the field who have investigated memory issues and found repressed memories and amnesia legitimate," I'd appreciate some legitimate examples if you wouldn't mind citing some.

Here is a report on the Libby trial in 2006 where Loftus was attempting to become the memory expert for the trial. It may give you some insights into your expert.

No memory expert for Libby trial

Click to expand...

Read that story more closely. She wasn't "attempting to become the memory expert" for that trial. She was a defense witness testifying as to whether or not there should be a memory expert (which was not going to be her).

Her being dismantled on the stand by a very skilled lawyer doesn't at all negate her expertise. It just means the Special Counsel was a damned good lawyer (obviously, or he wouldn't have been named as special counsel).

Here is some info on Dissociative Disorders Here is the current diagnostic "bible" definition for dissociative identity disorder (and believe me if the majority of psychiatrists did not believe it existed, it wouldn't be in this manual):

DSM-5

Click to expand...

That is not at all based in the reality of how the DSM is made. The majority of psychiatrists get to provide no input whatsoever. In fact, there was much controversy over how the DSM-V was put together by the small, closed-off committee who approved it and criticisms of what was and was not included. It's certainly received the most lukewarm, if not negative, reception of any DSM to date.

As for your assertion that the "majority of psychiatrists [believe] it [exists]," um...

ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/september/piper.pdf

ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/october/piper.pdf

http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/sybilbogus.html

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143925