Is this woman a transphobe?

[Border Reiver]

movements well known for their top notch safeguarding practices

Before I trained and qualified. I worked within legal and medical guidelines after that. I seem to be being accused of being too medical model and too anti-psychiatry at the same time. I am simply advocating for patient's rights and against political axe grinders interfering in their treatment.

 

[bimble]

I am simply advocating for patient's rights and against political axe grinders interfering in their treatment.

Its as if you think that medicine itself, treatments and diagnoses (whatever they may be at given time and place) are somehow non-political, that all the politics goes on outside the hallowed doors. Thats peculiar.

 

[Border Reiver]

Its as if you think that medicine itself, treatments and diagnoses (whatever they may be at given time and place) are somehow non-political, that all the politics goes on outside the hallowed doors. Thats peculiar.

I did not say that. You do seem to have a problem with logical inference.

If a person (or their guardian) wish to consult a doctor about a medical issue why should any other person or body interfere in that decision? What could possibly override such personal autonomy?

 

[bimble]

I did not say that. You do seem to have a problem with logical inference.

If a person (or their guardian) wish to consult a doctor about a medical issue why should any other person or body interfere in that decision? What could possibly override such personal autonomy?

We are not talking about the same thing at all. I'm not interested in stopping anyone from seeking help.
As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue. You will presumably be about 90 by then though.

 

[8ball]

As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue.

I think some posters on this thread mentioned they know some future historians.

 

[Border Reiver]

We are not talking about the same thing at all. I'm not interested in stopping anyone from seeking help.
As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue. You will presumably be about 90 by then though.

So you have been arguing for the sake of it. How sad. My point is about rights, which are not going to change in 15-20 years. No other medical decision admits third party intervention except those regarding the start or end of life. And medical ethics on this subject are very unlikely to change in a generation.

 

[smokedout]

One of the interesting, if that's the word, things about the debate on treating trans kids is how out of step the perceptions of risk are with other forms of treatment or activities. GIDS and gender services are not seeing a flood of transitioners, or even any at all. A large study of those who had treatment in the UK found that out of 3398 patients only 16 experienced regret or detranisioned. Of those ten detransitioned then later re-transitioned, and only three, less than 0.1% remained detransitioned - and some of this regret was down to social factor not the process of transition itself. These are astonishingly successful figures for satisfaction with a medical procedure.

Every time a kid is placed under anaesthetic there is a risk of complications and even death, and not all surgery is clinically imperative. We give medicines to children all the time which can have serious side effects in some cases, and not just for physical conditions. The contraceptive pill can impact on bone density, sex can obviously have lifelong consequences and we permit that from 16 and recognise the reality that many young people may do it sooner - and make legal accommodations for that such as Gillick. Lots of kids start drinking at home around 15/16, many kids play dangerous sports with real risks of life changing injuries, we let people drive from 17. We even give the exact same drugs to children with precocious puberty that are prescribed to some trans kids and there is no clinically vital reason to do that in a lot of cases except that it reduces social discomfort or allow kids chance to grow taller. In every area of life, especially medicine, there is an element of risk, yet the risks of regret from transition - and remember no-one has hormones until 16 in the UK or surgery before 18 - are presented as worse than the risk of death it often seems - something touched on in the recent court case. I think like so much of this debate there is a lot going on beneath the surface that has little to do with evidence or objective assessments.

 

[smokedout]

Fucked the above post up. I meant to add I thinkwhat's going on is an unspoken limbic horror at the thought of having sexual characteristics that don't match your birth sex or gender identity - and I don't think it's any surprise that so much of the focus is on those born phsycially female, who are said to mutilate their bodies by many gender critical people - and a lot of gender critical men. Almost as if a woman (as they see it) making herself unattractive to men or infertile is the greatest social horror that can be imagined - worse even than death itself - and so it must be banned, even if that leaves people living lives of unnecesssary suffering.

 

[8ball]

I thought almost all of the focus was generally on those born physically male.

The sports thing, the endless bathrooms thing, the prisons stuff... pretty much everything.

If you mean the clinics, I thought people had focused on that because of big recent changes in numbers referred. Aside from that, trans men seem generally mentioned little.

 

[teuchter]

Fucked the above post up. I meant to add I thinkwhat's going on is an unspoken limbic horror at the thought of having sexual characteristics that don't match your birth sex or gender identity - and I don't think it's any surprise that so much of the focus is on those born phsycially female, who are said to mutilate their bodies by many gender critical people - and a lot of gender critical men. Almost as if a woman (as they see it) making herself unattractive to men or infertile is the greatest social horror that can be imagined - worse even than death itself - and so it must be banned, even if that leaves people living lives of unnecesssary suffering.

I can go along with pretty much everything you say in the post above this one - but then you move entirely to your speculations about what's going on in other people's heads, and then you lose me.

Are you able to define what "gender critical" means - to you, when you use that term?

I'm trying to understand how someone who doesn't really accept the notion of gender identity could have a limbic horror at someone having sexual characteristics that don't match their gender identity. How can they consider that something "doesn't match" something they don't view as an identifiable thing in the first place?

 

[bimble]

Absolutely wild speculation about what’s subconsciously motivating The Other Side is fine. Noted.

 

[smokedout]

Absolutely wild speculation about what’s subconsciously motivating The Other Side is fine. Noted.

Somewhat ironic given the near totality of this debate is wild speculation about what is supposedly subconsciously driving gender transition.

Pages and pages of it on this thread in fact.

 

[smokedout]

I can go along with pretty much everything you say in the post above this one - but then you move entirely to your speculations about what's going on in other people's heads, and then you lose me.

Are you able to define what "gender critical" means - to you, when you use that term?

By gender critical as I've said many times I mean those in the movement which self identifies as gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights/healthcare.

I'm trying to understand how someone who doesn't really accept the notion of gender identity could have a limbic horror at someone having sexual characteristics that don't match their gender identity. How can they consider that something "doesn't match" something they don't view as an identifiable thing in the first place?

It's hardly controversial to consider whether unconscious biases and prejudices may have a role to play in underpinning someone's political or intellectual position - especially when that position targets a minority as in this case. And to be honest, seeing Glinner rant on and on about poor mutilated girls and gender critical dad railing against the healthcare his now 25 year old (and seemingly happy but alienated from his family) trans son received that destroyed his precious daughter then I think it's more than reasonable to suggest there may be some patriarchal forces at play, Men have been trying to control women's bodies for centuries - for a woman to transition to male is surely the ultimate blasphemy that must be prevented at all costs.

 

[smokedout]

I thought almost all of the focus was generally on those born physically male.

The sports thing, the endless bathrooms thing, the prisons stuff... pretty much everything.

If you mean the clinics, I thought people had focused on that because of big recent changes in numbers referred. Aside from that, trans men seem generally mentioned little.

Sorry I was referring specifically to trans healthcare, I agree about the rest. I think the rise in numbers is part of the story, but I don;t think that's the reason gender critical activists are demonstrating outside events for trans kids and gender clinics with placards showing surgical and post surgery photographs of what they call mutilated women (meaning trans men).

 

[8ball]

Sorry I was referring specifically to trans healthcare, I agree about the rest. I think the rise in numbers is part of the story, but I don;t think that's the reason gender critical activists are demonstrating outside events for trans kids and gender clinics with placards showing surgical and post surgery photographs of what they call mutilated women (meaning trans men).

Gotcha. I think that’s largely playing the numbers game. They’d be going for some kind of ‘body shock’ vibe whatever. A trick picked up from anti-abortionists.

 

[Yossarian]

Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.

Arkansas lawmakers enact transgender youth treatment ban

Hutchinson vetoed the bill following pleas from pediatricians, social workers and the parents of transgender youth who said the measure would harm a community already at risk for depression and suicide.

www.wbtv.com

 

[SpackleFrog]

Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.

Arkansas lawmakers enact transgender youth treatment ban

Hutchinson vetoed the bill following pleas from pediatricians, social workers and the parents of transgender youth who said the measure would harm a community already at risk for depression and suicide.

www.wbtv.com

Have had a sit back and been reading for a couple of days. I didn't know there was a specific thread for discussion of this issue - would be interested to know which one.

I think this is the reason that we can't have a moratorium on discussing trans issues - because we're living through attacks on trans people and it wouldn't be Urban anymore if we just ignored them.

I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?

 

[Border Reiver]

Have had a sit back and been reading for a couple of days. I didn't know there was a specific thread for discussion of this issue - would be interested to know which one.

I think this is the reason that we can't have a moratorium on discussing trans issues - because we're living through attacks on trans people and it wouldn't be Urban anymore if we just ignored them.

I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?

That has been my point. Denial of rights, not medicine itself.

 

[smokedout]

I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?

Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.

 

[teuchter]

By gender critical as I've said many times I mean those in the movement which self identifies as gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights/healthcare.

Is there a correct term for someone who does not subscribe to the concept of gender identity, but does not object in principle to medical interventions for gender dysphoria, and does not campaign against trans rights or healthcare?

Or is it your view that such a person cannot exist, because of things that necessarily follow if you reject the concept of gender identity?

 

[smokedout]

Is there a correct term for someone who does not subscribe to the concept of gender identity, but does not object in principle to medical interventions for gender dysphoria, and does not campaign against trans rights or healthcare?

Or is it your view that such a person cannot exist, because of things that necessarily follow if you reject the concept of gender identity?

I'm a gender abolitionist myself, so not too far from that position. I think those in the gender critical movement though would claim such a person can't exist, or more likely that they were a hypocrite or coward.

It's hardly unusual for there not to be correct terms which perfectly describe every possible combination of views someone might hold, but by all means call yourself gender critical if you want. Just be aware that there is a self identified movement, with a shared ideology, that calls themselves gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights, trans inclusion and trans healthcare, so people will probably assume you are part of that. Perhaps capital letters would help, Gender Critical, does that make more sense?

 

[teuchter]

I'm a gender abolitionist myself, so not too far from that position. I think those in the gender critical movement though would claim such a person can't exist, or more likely that they were a hypocrite or coward.

It's hardly unusual for there not to be correct terms which perfectly describe every possible combination of views someone might hold, but by all means call yourself gender critical if you want. Just be aware that there is a self identified movement, with a shared ideology, that calls themselves gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights, trans inclusion and trans healthcare, so people will probably assume you are part of that. Perhaps capital letters would help, Gender Critical, does that make more sense?

I think there may be a significant number of people who would call themselves 'gender critical' (or are confused about whether they fall into that category) who you might consider to be 'gender abolitionist'.

I suspect, for example, that the woman who is the subject of the OP might be one of those people.

I only follow this issue sporadically, which in the end is what most people probably do, and I had got the impression that 'gender critical' was something people were now using to describe themselves in preference to being labelled TERFs. I may well have got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Orang Utan]

This was mostly a good thread with civilised discussion on it. Things seem to have polarised since though

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-does-the-fight-against-gender-stereotyping-reconcile-itself-with-transgender-issues.323069/

 

[teuchter]

I thought I'd google "gender abolitionist" and here's one of the results (I know nothing about the writer; it was simply the second search result after wikipedia)

A gender abolitionist in a non-ideal world

It’s not an easy path to tread, being a gender apostate. As a feminist who thinks that female biology is real, that female socialization…

medium.com

That writer seems to consider herself both a 'gender abolitionist' and a 'gender critical feminist'.

 

[smokedout]

That writer seems to consider herself both a 'gender abolitionist' and a 'gender critical feminist'.

Oh no, I must have imagined the organised well funded movement which calls itself Gender Critical and which is focussed on attacking trans rights, inclusion and healthcare then. Thank you for helping me realise my silly mistake.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.

I hope not.

 

[teuchter]

Oh no, I must have imagined the organised well funded movement which calls itself Gender Critical and which is focussed on attacking trans rights, inclusion and healthcare then. Thank you for helping me realise my silly mistake.

I'm attempting to suggest to you that (I think) lots people are confused about these terms, and therefore some people who call themselves gender critical may hold different opinions from the ones that you ascribe to them. And in fact on many matters perhaps they are very much on your side.

If you are unwilling to consider that as a possibility, then yes I think that may be a silly mistake.

 

[Athos]

I'm critical of gender (is hard not be given the harm it causes people of both sexes) but, increasingly, I'd think twice before describing myself as 'gender critical', now the label's been (wrongly*) adopted by some dubious individuals and groups. But I think it's a mistake - because of how polarising and divisive it is - to assume that everyone who describes themselves that way thinks the same, or even realises that many of the others who do are iffy.

*I mean it's ridiculous for, say, conservative Christians to claim that they're critical of gender; many of them are just using it as shorthand for anti-trans.

 

[smokedout]

I'm attempting to suggest to you that (I think) lots people are confused about these terms, and therefore some people who call themselves gender critical may hold different opinions from the ones that you ascribe to them. And in fact on many matters perhaps they are very much on your side.

If you are unwilling to consider that as a possibility, then yes I think that may be a silly mistake.

Well they may well do. Some Conservatives support decent social spending, non traditional families or drugs legalisation. That doesn't mean Conservatives don't exist or that it is incorrect to use it as a term for a political movement based on a particular type of ideology.

I'm really sorry you are confused, or that everything isn't placed perfectly into boxes for you. I genuinely feel for you if you are concerned that if you call yourself gender critical then some people might ascribe views to you which you don't hold. It must be terrible, would you like me to make up a special name for people like you?

However I'm currently a bit more concerned with the well funded organised attack on people like me from a political movement which explicitly names itself Gender Critical which seeks to deny trans people's healthcare, destroy existing trans rights and ultimately to morally mandate trans people out of society. There are many trans people like myself who have criticisms of the way gender identity is often described, or even the term itself, or who are gender abolitionists. Perhaps that might confuse people about what I believe. Perhaps I might have to describe my views in a sentence, rather than an acronym or soundbite. I share your pain brother. It's just not my priority right now.

 

[Athos]

I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?

Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.

I'd have said the opposite; the reason the new law didn't attract much debate is because nobody here would support it!