As always, the post in question.
It’s a short post;
CAMH has issued a public apology for publishing false and defamatory statements about Dr. Zucker and his methods in treating transkids. (I’ll hold my breath waiting for our community to do the same….) As part of the vindication, CAMH is paying over half a million dollars as reparations and legal costs.
Interestingly, she gets a very easy fact wrong, probably because she forgot she’s American and Zucker is Canadian. The amounts listed in the settlement are $400000, $11000, $175000. This totals to $586,000 in Canadian dollars. When we convert this to American dollars, by the use of the handy Google converter, we note that is it significantly less at a sum of $451,000 American dollars.
Interestingly, the report has been removed and the alleged victim of Zucker’s ire has been erased and deemed a liar.
Regardless, Kenneth Zucker is decidedly not an ally of trans individuals.
He regularly retweets TERFs and TERF rhetoric (one example of three hours ago at the time of writing this post). I agree with some of the critiques in the tweet, decontextualized from the poster, their comments and their views on trans people, but the fact that Zucker retweeted such an egregiously transphobic poster is problematic to say the least.
He is further platformed by transphobes and ROGD-pushers; here
He is widely (NARTH) cited (LeaderU) by anti-gay groups that seek to convert gay children to straight (a practice now shown to be ineffective and that has been condemned by virtually all medical organizations in the United States).
He’s also been noted by his allies to perform conversion therapy on trans kids (using the real meaning, not Kay Brown’s bullshit meaning);
Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks that the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk. Zucker emphasizes a three-pronged treatment approach for boys with GID. First, he thinks that family dynamics play a large role in childhood GID—not necessarily in the origins of cross-gendered behavior, but in their persistence. It is the disordered and chaotic family, according to Zucker, that can’t get its act together to present a consistent and sensible reaction to the child, which would be something like the following: “We love you, but you are a boy, not a girl. Wishing to be a girl will only make you unhappy in the long run, and pretending to be a girl will only make your life around others harder.” So the first prong of Zucker’s approach is family therapy. Whatever conflicts or issues that parents have that prevent them from uniting to help their child must be addressed.
The second prong is therapy for the boy, to help him adjust to the idea that he cannot become a girl, and to help teach him how to minimize social ostracism. Zucker does not teach boys how to walk in a manly fashion, but he does give them feedback about the likely consequences of taking a doll to school.
The third prong is key. Zucker says simply: “The Barbies have to go.” He has nothing against Barbie dolls, of course. He means something more general. Feminine toys and accoutrements—including Barbie dolls, girls’ shoes, dresses, purses, and princess gowns—are no longer to be tolerated at home, much less bought for the child. Zucker believes that toleration and encouragement of feminine play and dress prevents the child from accepting his maleness. Common sense says that a boy who wants to play with dolls so much that he is willing to risk his father’s wrath and his peers’ scorn is unlikely to change his behavior due to inconsistent feedback, sometimes forbidding, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes even encouraging it. Inconsistent parenting like this is ineffective in stamping out any kind of unwanted behavior.
Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome. … Why put boys at risk for this when they can become gay men happy to be men?
His practices are similarly gender normative, and would be condemned by any consistent anti-gender radical feminist (such as myself).
I could go on, but I think it’s self-evident that he supports conversion therapy and is deeply connected with transphobic and homophobic organizations.