I have published several essays on the medical scandal of our time, so called gender affirming care, or GAC, which involves social identification and representation of a gender as the gender it is not (and cannot be), often associated with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and radical cosmetic surgeries, which include double mastectomy, facial feminization/masculinization, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty. GAC is backed by a junk science supposing, to put the matter in the simplest terms, that people are sometimes born into the wrong bodies. There are clinics across the nation that administer GAC, and all the major medical associations legitimize the procedure. Whether medical professionals do so because of the enormous profits GAC generates, or because they believe that gender identity is akin to sexual preference, is a matter of debate.
As I showed in a recent essay, we have been here before with the lobotomy (The Persistence of Medical Atrocities: Lobotomy, Nazi Doctors, and Gender Affirming Care). A lobotomy, also known as a leukotomy, is a psychosurgical procedure that involves intentionally damaging connections in the brain’s prefrontal cortex ostensibly to treat mental disorders by altering the brain’s function. In the case of GAC, the ostensible purpose is to treat mental disorders (gender dysphoria) by altering the physiology and physical appearance of the subject. The lobotomy doesn’t exhaust the universe of junk science. Nor do the instances of social contagion covered on Freedom and Reason exhaust the universe of mass hysteria and moral panic (Why Aren’t We Talking More About Social Contagion?). We find in the recovered memory scandal at the end of the twentieth century another high profile example of pseudoscientific accounting and manufacture of mass psychogenic illness.
During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous individuals, primarily women, began to “recall” previously forgotten memories of childhood abuse, often “revealed” through therapy. These memories, referred to as “recovered memories,” were “discovered” using various therapeutic techniques, such as hypnosis, guided imagery, and other suggestive methods. The recovered memory movement gained significant momentum during the period, leading to a wave of accusations and legal actions against alleged abusers. Many lives were ruined. (Perhaps the most notorious case was the McMartin Preschool, Exhibit A in the satanic panic episode. See Believing Women and Children and Forgetting History.)
Many of these cases involved accusations of sexual abuse, often against family members or authority figures. The sensational nature of the accusations and the emotional weight of the testimonies led to widespread media coverage and a surge in public concern about hidden abuse. Like the trajectory of genderism, as the recovered memory movement grew, so did controversy and skepticism. Critics argued that the techniques used to recover these memories were not scientifically validated and that they could lead to the creation of false memories. Research indicated that memory is not a perfect recording of events and can be influenced and distorted by suggestion, leading to the phenomenon known as “false memory syndrome.”
High-profile cases and legal battles brought the issue to the forefront of public debate, with some accused individuals being convicted and later exonerated when evidence of memory contamination emerged. Professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), issued statements cautioning against the uncritical acceptance of recovered memories in therapeutic and legal contexts. The APA established the Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse in 1993 to review the available evidence and provide guidance. The APA released a report in 1998 that stated that, while it is possible for memories of childhood abuse to be forgotten and later remembered, it is also possible for people to develop false memories of events that never occurred. The report emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence when assessing the accuracy of such memories and urged caution in both accepting memories without further evidence.
During this period, American cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus became well known for her work on the malleability and reliability of memory, particularly in the context of eyewitness testimony and recovered memories. Loftus’ research has demonstrated how easily human memory can be influenced and altered by suggestion. She is best known for her documentation of the “misinformation effect,” in which the memories of subjects are altered by exposure to incorrect information. Although false memories are the result of the inherent way brains function, she found that a significant proportion of the population are especially vulnerable to techniques producing false memories. Loftus’ work led to significant reform in the criminal justice process as academics and therapists who theorize that memory repression is a natural survival technique had their beliefs called into question and their legitimacy as expert witnesses against those accused of child sexual abuse challenged. (For a comprehensive overview of Loftus’ work, see her 1994 The Myth of Repressed Memory.)
Despite facing significant criticism and controversy, particularly from advocates of recovered memory therapy and those who believe they were victims of sexual abuse, Loftus’ work continues to be a cornerstone in the field of cognitive psychology and legal studies (I teach her work in my criminal justice courses). There are many experts today who find themselves in Loftus’ situation, skeptics who will (hopefully) change the way people think about GAC but will have to endure the hate and vitriol Loftus suffered (she had been assaulted, sued, and threatened with death). The recovered memory scandal highlights the need for rigorous scientific standards in therapeutic practices and the potential harm of suggestive techniques. More generally, it highlights the ethical responsibilities of mental health and medical professionals, responsibilities corrupted by profit and ideology. It also shows us how bad ideas can sweep through a population with harmful consequences.
freedom and reason 