Is this woman a transphobe?

[19force8]

I think they'll probably revert to what they were doing, as I've no doubt they sincerely believe it's in their patients' best interests (and they're probably right). But, in any event, they're currently reviewing the service.

From what I've seen there's very little evidence the NHS Gender Identity Development Services for adolescents (& adults) were capable of acting in their patients' best interests before Bell. So I have every doubt they'll start now.

I don't know if it's been reported in another thread, but there is a three month inquisition tribunal running just now in which the GMC has charged a GP who provided these services in 2016 with, among other things, not following guidelines that didn't exist until 2019. Even the GMC's own expert witnesses have admitted that the NHS GIDSs are not fit for purpose.

It's being live tweeted at the link below for anyone interested:

https://twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing

 

[belboid]

yeah, any issues with GIDS are definitely nothing to do with appalling underfunding, waiting lists way longer than the supposed eighteen weeks (you're bloody lucky if you're seen within eighteen months) and everything to do with their being in thrall to ideology

 

[Athos]

From what I've seen there's very little evidence the NHS Gender Identity Development Services for adolescents (& adults) were capable of acting in their patients' best interests before Bell. So I have every doubt they'll start now.

I don't know if it's been reported in another thread, but there is a three month inquisition tribunal running just now in which the GMC has charged a GP who provided these services in 2016 with, among other things, not following guidelines that didn't exist until 2019. Even the GMC's own expert witnesses have admitted that the NHS GIDSs are not fit for purpose.

It's being live tweeted at the link below for anyone interested:

https://twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing

It seems like there's not yet a sufficent evidence base for some of what's being done, but, given that doing nothing isn't a harm-free option, the least bad option (for now) is to go with the best guess of experts in the field, whom I'm sure want the best for their patients.

 

[19force8]

yeah, any issues with GIDS are definitely nothing to do with appalling underfunding, waiting lists way longer than the supposed eighteen weeks (you're bloody lucky if you're seen within eighteen months) and everything to do with their being in thrall to ideology

Not sure what you're getting at here. The GIDS were and are massively underfunded and so not capable of acting in their patients' best interests. regardless of what they believe.

As for "ideology" - I don't know enough to say for sure, but I think there must be a link between the funding and popularity/appeal of different areas of medicine. Is that what you meant?

 

[belboid]

Not sure what you're getting at here. The GIDS were and are massively underfunded and so not capable of acting in their patients' best interests. regardless of what they believe.

As for "ideology" - I don't know enough to say for sure, but I think there must be a link between the funding and popularity/appeal of different areas of medicine. Is that what you meant?

No, I mean that health services should be provided for on the basis of need. Which means fully funding them so people have a hope of 'proper' support and not leaving waiting lists that drive people to dodgy medicines over the net or self harming.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Neither can I, but nor can I see the Tavistock reinstating even its woefully inadequate services while there's talk of an appeal.

That's how lawfare works.

Yep

 

[Edie]

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

 

[SpookyFrank]

View attachment 290007

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

If only there was some context provided, like for example the inclusion of the words 'anatomy and physiology', that could cast some light on the intended meaning of this phrase.

 

[Edie]

Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy?

 

[Thora]

View attachment 290007

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

This, and a post from I think the ACLU where they edited the word “woman” out of a Ruth Bader Ginsberg quote, have both made me this week.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy?

View attachment 290009

I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.

 

[Thora]

I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.

Why are so many organisations avoiding using the word woman anymore though? I don’t understand how/why it’s become offensive


What kind of people are being controlled and treated as less than? Is there a link between them and bodies with vaginas?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Fun fact: anyone who bothered to read the relevant article would see it pertained to an exhibition about periods at the Vagina Museum. So some justification for mentioning vaginas, maybe.

The full version of the sentence quoted on the cover also features the word 'women'.

 

[Edie]

I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.

I don’t understand this. What is fiat? Clearly the above examples show evidence of the word woman being taken out of use. And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?

 

[kabbes]

View attachment 290007

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?

The irony is that a social context that categorises one group of people as “bodies with vaginas” is precisely one that will then inadequately consider the needs and experiences of that group within its research. The headline is like a subtle and bleak joke about the dehistoricisation and subjectivity-blindness of science.

 

[Edie]

Fun fact: anyone who bothered to read the relevant article would see it pertained to an exhibition about periods at the Vagina Museum. So some justification for mentioning vaginas, maybe.

The full version of the sentence quoted on the cover also features the word 'women'.

Don’t minimise it

 

[SpookyFrank]

Don’t minimise it

Did you read the article? If you did I strongly suspect it would assuage your concerns.

Periods on display

The silence, shame, and stigma surrounding menstruation are increasingly being challenged from various cultural domains. In a bold, comical, and highly digestible book, It's About Bloody Time. Period. (2019), Emma Barnett busts taboos about menstruation. Others have focused on period poverty—the...

www.thelancet.com

It's free to access.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Clearly the above examples show evidence of the word woman being taken out of use. And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?

Again, the word 'women' appears in the sentence quoted.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The irony is that a social context that categorises one group of people as “bodies with vaginas” is precisely one that will then inadequately consider the needs and experiences of that group within its research. The headline is like a subtle and bleak joke about the dehistoricisation and subjectivity-blindness of science.

Did you read the article?

 

[Edie]

Again, the word 'women' appears in the sentence quoted.

And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?

Seriously, when did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.

 

[SpookyFrank]

And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?

Seriously, when did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.

When did I tell anyone what to call themselves? I've called into question the validity of using a sentence with the word 'women' in it as evidence that the word 'women' is being taken out of use. I consider that fair comment.

I've also suggested that context might affect meaning, as in the case of an article about vaginas and menstruation having a headline with the word 'vagina' in it.

You don't want to address either of those points so you've decided I'm telling you that you can't call yourself a woman. Quote any post of mine where I have done anything of the sort and I will happily retract it with a cringing apology.

 

[Edie]

When did I tell anyone what to call themselves? I've called into question the validity of using a sentence with the word 'women' in it as evidence that the word 'women' is being taken out of use. I consider that fair comment.

I've also suggested that context might affect meaning, as in the case of an article about vaginas and menstruation having a headline with the word 'vagina' in it.

You don't want to address either of those points so you've decided I'm telling you that you can't call yourself a woman. Quote any post of mine where I have done anything of the sort and I will happily retract it with a cringing apology.

This is just flannel. I told you that I found women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That abolition of the word woman in full:

Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria.

For the record I understand that language is one of many ways in which women are 'controlled or treated as less than', but the words quoted appear to be the words of someone who is working to expose and counteract that mistreatment, not to contribute to it.

 

[Knotted]

It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!

 

[kabbes]

Did you read the article?

It’s not about the article, though. It’s about the headline, and what that headline says about the editorial decisions.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I might question the wisdom of the editor who chose that sentence fragment, stripped of context, for the cover of a journal. Particularly as the context in this case entirely vindicates the choice of language.

 

[Edie]

That abolition of the word woman in full:



For the record I understand that language is one of many ways in which women are 'controlled or treated as less than', but the words quoted appear to be the words of someone who is working to expose and counteract that mistreatment, not to contribute to it.

You are missing the point Frank

 

[Sue]

It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!

Jesus.

 

[Edie]

It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!

Are you really that dumb?

 

[keybored]

They might retract it in 12 years or so.