Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

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.

This is not about my views or about how you define or describe your views. I am trying to say that I think that many people who you seem to assume are in opposition to you or seeking to attack your rights, are neither of those.

This is what is happening on both "sides" of this - assumptions about what motivates apparently opposing viewpoints.
 
This is not about my views or about how you define or describe your views. I am trying to say that I think that many people who you seem to assume are in opposition to you or seeking to attack your rights, are neither of those.

This is what is happening on both "sides" of this - assumptions about what motivates apparently opposing viewpoints.

How do you know who I assume is in opposition to me? I am critical of gender, so are probably most trans people - and in fact for a long time I was reluctant to name the anti-trans movement Gender Critical on those grounds. But that's what they call themselves and sorry I'm not going to say Gender Critical except teuchter and anyone who is critical of gender but supports trans rights because that would be fucking ridiculous. If someone articulates they support trans rights they are clearly not in opposition to me. If someone describes themselves as gender critical but supportive of trans rights they are not in opposition to me. If someone describes themselves as gender critical and starts ranting on about mutilated bodies or trans people erasing gays and lesbians then they probably are in opposition to me. I don't actually find it very difficult, I don't really understand why you do or what purpose it serves to try and deny trans people from being able to name the movement that is opposed to us. In fact I think it is you who is making assumptions about what I believe or how I might categorise someone's views.
 
In the context of a thread about trans issues, I'd probably call them "derailing the thread".
Alternatively "thinking outside the box".

Are you really suggesting that discrimination against trans people can not be considered in comparison to discrimination against other social groups. Discrimination is discrimination using exactly the same mechanisms in every case.
 
Alternatively "thinking outside the box".

Are you really suggesting that discrimination against trans people can not be considered in comparison to discrimination against other social groups. Discrimination is discrimination using exactly the same mechanisms in every case.
I think sometimes some analogies are helpful and sometimes some analogies aren't. I'm a big fan of a good analogy myself, but there's plenty of ones that are unhelpful - for instance, the "trans-racial" comparison made in the text posted in the OP.
 
Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.
North Carolina getting in on the trend as well: N.C. bill would ban treatment for trans people under 21
Senate Bill 514 would also compel state employees to immediately notify parents in writing if their child displays “gender nonconformity” or expresses a desire to be treated in a way that is incompatible with the gender they were assigned at birth. LGBTQ advocates fear the bill would out people under 21 who tell state workers that they may be transgender.
Full text of the bill is here, if anyone wants to check for themselves: https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf

But aye, the real danger to gender non-conforming youth is definitely the hordes of people rushing to tell them that they must be trans and they need to have surgery right away, that's definitely the real problem here.
 
I'd have said the opposite; the reason the new law didn't attract much debate is because nobody here would support it!

My point was that some of the views that have been expressed on this thread are fuelling actual real life attacks on trans rights, whether the proponents of those views accept that or not and whether they would agree with those attacks or not. Although for clarity, I think its pretty obvious that some people on this thread do agree with the Republicans in Arkansaw that trans healthcare for miners should be banned.
 
What do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who objects to a white person being legally recognised as black is a racist?
 
My point was that some of the views that have been expressed on this thread are fuelling actual real life attacks on trans rights, whether the proponents of those views accept that or not and whether they would agree with those attacks or not. Although for clarity, I think its pretty obvious that some people on this thread do agree with the Republicans in Arkansaw that trans healthcare for miners should be banned.

I don't think anyone here has supported anything as extreme as what's happened in Arkansas.
 
I don't think anyone here has supported anything as extreme as what's happened in Arkansas.

Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.

These things are linked. It isn't separate.
 
Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.

These things are linked. It isn't separate.

The Bell judgement applies to under-16s, and the Arkansas law to under-18s; the Bell judgement doesn't prevent treatment based on parental consent alone, whereas the Arkansas law does; and, the Bell judgement doesn't prevent referral for other treatments, but the Arkansas law does. I think the Bell judgement was wrong, but it's nowhere near as bad as what's happening in Arkansas. As far as I can tell, even those here who have concerns about under-16s being given this treatment (which is experimental, and which recent evidence suggests is less effective and more risky than previously thought) don't seem to be going as far as Arkansas.
 
The Bell judgement applies to under-16s, and the Arkansas law to under-18s; the Bell judgement doesn't prevent treatment based on parental consent alone, whereas the Arkansas law does; and, the Bell judgement doesn't prevent referral for other treatments, but the Arkansas law does. I think the Bell judgement was wrong, but it's nowhere near as bad as what's happening in Arkansas. As far as I can tell, even those here who have concerns about under-16s being given this treatment (which is experimental, and which recent evidence suggests is less effective and more risky than previously thought) don't seem to be going as far as Arkansas.

I don't think its much of a jump from u-16's to u-18's and I don't share your faith but fair enough
 
I think sometimes some analogies are helpful and sometimes some analogies aren't. I'm a big fan of a good analogy myself, but there's plenty of ones that are unhelpful - for instance, the "trans-racial" comparison made in the text posted in the OP.
That is because that is about between self identification.

But my example is directly analogous as it is about discrimination not identification.
 
Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.

These things are linked. It isn't separate.I
A later case confirmed that only consent by minors alone is doubtful. Consent by parents is lawful as it has always been. Additionally persons currently being treated are not affected. Only a literal handful of current cases are being appealed in June. Very few parents oppose treatment when properly consented- in fact parents are often the main proponents for treatment.

It is a storm in a teacup.
 
Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.

These things are linked. It isn't separate.

As are the bills in Arkansas and North Carolina. The contents of these bills were heavily influenced by a joint document put out by WoLF (Woman's Liberation Front), The Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and anti-trans parent's groups which can be found here: https://genderresourceguide. (break) com/wp-content/themes/genderresource/library/documents/NPRGFullDocumentPrintV17.pdf

Dr. Hruz, whose evidence was heavily relied on in the Bell judgement is linked to both ADF and the Heritage Foundation having previously spoken at their events, acted as an expert witness for them and attended their conferences. He has no clinical experience in treating gender dysphoria, and his own University has warned he is not qualified to speak on this subject. Keira Bell's inspiration Posie Parker recently formally joined WoLF as a special advisor "to further transatlantic feminist collaboration". There is significant collaboration taking place between some gender critical activists in the UK opposed to trans healthcare and right wing and evangelical groups in the US pushing these bills.
 
Last edited:
I don't think its much of a jump from u-16's to u-18's and I don't share your faith but fair enough

The Judge in the Bell case agreed:

We do however recognise that in the light of the evidence that has emerged, and the terms of this judgment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment, such as PBs or CSH, without the involvement of the court. We consider that it would be appropriate for clinicians to involve the court in any case where there may be any doubt as to whether the long-term best interests of a 16 or 17 year old would be served by the clinical interventions at issue in this case.
 
As are the bills in Arkansas and North Carolina. The contents of these bills were heavily influenced by a joint document put out by WoLF (Woman's Liberation Front), The Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and anti-trans parent's groups which can be found here: https://genderresourceguide. (break) com/wp-content/themes/genderresource/library/documents/NPRGFullDocumentPrintV17.pdf

Dr. Hruz, whose evidence was heavily relied on in the Bell judgement is linked to both ADF and the Heritage Foundation having previously spoken at their events, acted as an expert witness for them and attending their conferences. He has no clinical experience in treating gender dysphoria, and his own University has warned he is not qualified to speak on this subject. Keira Bell's inspiration Posie Parker recently formally joined WoLF as a special advisor "to further transatlantic feminist collaboration". There is significant collaboration taking place between some gender critical activists in the UK opposed to trans healthcare and right wing and evangelical groups in the US pushing these bills.

Not for nothing is the UK called "TERF island".
 
As a social construct, gender may correlate with biological sex but is not caused by it. All identities are negotiated between the person and the society. That is what "construction" means. This applies to all identities, nationality, occupational, sexuality, group membership, etc, not just gender.
I have said and believe nothing else. I am a stong constructivist even beyond social science.
 
Maybe not all that tiny really, if he's telling the truth about how one fifth of the staff at the Tavistock GIDS service grouped together to announce that they too had 'grave ethical concerns' about the service that their own workplace was providing?
Please place that claim in context with a reference.
 
Incidentally Keira had a new case ready to go which has already raised £50,000 and which aimed to challenge the legality of the NHS signing the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy of which she says:

Attempts to help change or suppress a gender identity are seen as conversion therapy, unethical and potentially harmful. In practice this means that girls who believe they are boys are to be affirmed in that belief. Similarly boys who believe they are girls are to be affirmed in that belief. This limits the ability of clinicians to help children with these beliefs to be reconciled to their natal sex. If a clinician tries to challenge a child's misguided belief or explore its causes with a view to alleviating gender/sex confusion they run the risk of being accused of conversion therapy.

The case has probably been abandoned due to the upcoming independent review although I suspect if the review doesn't find what she wants there will be another attempt using the same evangelical tag team of witnesses that proved successful in her case against GIDS: Protect Gender Dysphoric Children from the Affirmation Model

She clearly supports not a wider exploration of other issues which may be causing dysphoria but explicit attempts to therapeutically challenge the 'misguided beliefs' of gender dysphoric kids and help them to be 'reconciled to their natal sex. Which sounds a lot like conversion therapy to me. but apparantly trans people concerned about this have lost their way and are being completely unreasonable.
 
Back
Top Bottom