You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In her article, Gullestad criticises dichotomic normative views on sexuality and gender, and raises rightful concerns regarding the treatment of trans people. Unfortunately, her approach may be seen as a tendentious treatment of a highly complex matter. The present review aims to complement Gullestad’s article. The tendentiousness of the article shows in: 1. The confusion of transgender as a fluid identity aim. 2. Failure to recognise the change in many official treatment policies due to a lack of firm conclusions on the effects and risks of treatments. 3. Neglect of vulnerable groups: An Increased number of minors seeking trans-treatment on unidentified grounds, although the officials warn about a greater risk of unbalanced treatment decisions. 4. A light attitude to regret regarding radical and irreversible treatments for minors. 5. Uncritical manifestation of a risky categorical attitude of affirmation. 6. Unnuanced and anti-scientific critique of the psychoanalyst’s implicit question of why. 7. Lack of psychodynamic dialectics: the reciprocal relationship between sexual and gender stability and fluidity. Contrary to Gullestad’s suggestion, the contribution of psychoanalysis depends on increasing knowledge through broadening and deepening the implicit question of why. The review suggests that increased knowledge could liberate psychoanalysts from rigid categorical attitudes of watchful waiting or affirmation.