Is this woman a transphobe?

[kabbes]

The problems with the Tavistock are manifold, one of the main ones being it's dogmatic adherence to Freudianism and talking therapies. They should never have been put in control of GIDS, nowhere else in the world are Freudian psychoanalysts running trans healthcare, and it's hardly suprising those who support an ideology which claims girls grow up with penis envy and boys with castration anxiety should become obsessed with healthcare for trans kids.

The Tavistock is not Freudian. Not all psychoanalysis is Freudian — they aren’t synonyms. The Tavistock follows strands of psychoanalytic theory that branched off from Freudianism over 70 years ago. The concepts it uses are not built on the concept of the bestial self (such as the idea of being driven by sexual instincts) at all. Instead, they are built on ideas that completely rejected that approach. There was a big bust up about it in the 1940s and 1950s, because they had completely different (and largely incompatible) conceptualisations of the formation of the unconscious

 

[19force8]

There's a good piece on the background of some of the issues around Stock here.

I knew Stock was a nasty piece of work, but didn't really get the extent and reach of her viciousness. Thank you

 

[emanymton]

Perhaps I should try and expand on it a bit then, although I'm trying to articulate this for the first time so bear with me if I end up talking shit.

I think most people have an inherent understanding of what sex they are, which they have understod since infancy and they are largely at peace with. They may not like aspects of their body, or even aspects of their sex such as menstruation, and they certainly might not like the gendered assumptions that come attached to their sex, but broadly they don't seek to change anything, don't hate their genitals, can function adequately sexually within their sex, and don't deeply desire, or feel they should have the body of the opposite sex. For the old school mumsnet approved transsexuals however that's not the case. The classic 'transsexual' child often doesn't just claim to want to be the other sex, but insists they are the other sex, often from as early as they can articulate it, and they keep insisting it until they become gender critical shills or die. I think it's probably more accurate to describe this as sex dysphoria rather than gender dysphoria - they are at odds with their bodies, not their social role, and this often led a lot of people to look for neurological or biological explanations for this that are rightly read as regressive - having the wrong body for your brain etc. I think people sought to medicalise their condition as away of deflecting from the shame they felt at being that way - it's not my fault, I was born this way - and a way to seek social approval for the same reason the emerging LGB movement sometimes made similar claims.

Under this model, and due to the hostile social conditions of the time, it's likely only the most sex dysphoric would go as far as transition - I mentioned upthread the first two trans women I ever met who told me not to transition unless I was suicidal and felt I really couldn't live another day as a man. But this model didn't really work for a lot of people, and felt like not just surrender to transphobia but also a form of gatekeeping from the older 'true trans' population. Sex dysphoria can be of differering strengths, and manifest in different ways and this was always the case, and what happened is people who didn't feel compelled to physically transition (or were too scared to) found solace in the LGB movement in things like the drag queen or butch communities, or if born physically male ended up in the transvestite quagmire - a highly sexualised identity which largely developed in the interests of male fetishists and those males who wanted to fuck them and alienated everyone else. But there were always transvestites who were not sexually motivated, who lived in the opposite gender to their birth sex all or most of the time (when they weren't at work for example), but who didn't seek surgery. Also there were always people who felt somewhat in the middle and were somewhat adrift although people were calling themselves genderqueer as early as the 90s if not before. And when a new generation emerged and started to build a language and way of articulating differing experiences of both sex and gender this was ferociously resisted by a lot of older trans people, who saw it as a threat because they didn't want to be visible or politicised and felt it undermined their own struggles. So there was an almighty row in the trans community abut it, which ultimately got resolved by an understanding that everyone experiences these things differently, they can be difficult to articulate, and probably the best thing to do is respect people's identities and not dictate to people what they should call themelves or what counts as being a legitimate transsexual. But I guess this is where the relationship between sex identity and gender identity started to get even more complex and influenced by things like aesthetics, preferences, and even political statements.

But even without this sex, and gender, and the interplay between them is still complex. Presentation doesn't just end at clothes and make up for example, many cis people alter their physicality to more closely match their assigned gender whether that's shaving their legs, getting ripped at the gym, having breast enlargement surgery etc. The pressure to conform to the gender assigned based on our physical sex is immense, and our internal maps of ourselves are unlikely to be able to truly untangle the two - it's been imprinted on us from birth, and those whose sex identity is askew may look to those of the sex they seek to be and emulate them. So someone with less intense sex dysphoria, or a mismatched sex identity, or a blurry sex identity, might gain comfort from changing their gender presentation and social role and this is enough for them - without a need for surgery, because that's actually quite a big deal, comes with consequences and is prohibitively expensive or very difficult to access in many countries (including the UK). But what underlies it is discomfort with their sex,and I suspect if you said to most binary trans people you can change your physical sex by waving a magic wand they would jump at the chance because it is bodies that lie at the core of the discomfort not stereotypes or social roles. In fact I suspect if you said to binary trans people you have a choice between remaining in the sexed body you were born with but changing your gender role, or changing the sexed body you were born with but remaining in the gender role you were assigned based on your birth sex then most would choose the second as the least worst option. When those who go onto transition, or seek trans healthcare, talk about gender dysphoria they often really mean bodily dysphoria based on their physical sex, and this may be present and a motivating factor to a greater or lesser degree in lots of people whose gender identity is not in accordance with their physical sex.

Can I make a polite request.

Could you try and put more line breaks and "white space" in your posts. As you often write a lot with not many paragraphs.

As a dyslexic I often find them very hard to read and end up skipping over large chunks, especially if in a bit of a rush. Which is a shame as I am genuinely really interested in reading what you have to say.

I appreciate that our style is largely instinctive and it is hard to change. But hey no harm in asking.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.

Anyone claiming they can change your sexuality for you is manipulative.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Looking at some of the mainstream reporting of the Kathleen Stock thing, It's all being sold as 'woke students silence academic' in a way that seems calculated to increase hostility to trans people and supporters of trans rights. LGBA is mentioned in passing or not at all, possibly because their actions and their known connections to US fundamentalists are too far beyond the pale to try and defend.

Expect Stock to continue to show up all over the place as the self-proclaimed voice of the silenced majority, with nobody at any point pointing out the irony in that.

 

[smokedout]

Looking at some of the mainstream reporting of the Kathleen Stock thing, It's all being sold as 'woke students silence academic' in a way that seems calculated to increase hostility to trans people and supporters of trans rights. LGBA is mentioned in passing or not at all, possibly because their actions and their known connections to US fundamentalists are too far beyond the pale to try and defend.

Expect Stock to continue to show up all over the place as the self-proclaimed voice of the silenced majority, with nobody at any point pointing out the irony in that.

The Guardian: "Stock’s only “crime” is that she refuses to deny the material reality of biological sex."

That's why I think Christa Peterson's piece is important, it doesn't just nail Stock but you could write a pretty similar piece for pretty much everyone who claims they have been cancelled just for saying that sex is real.

 

[smokedout]

The Tavistock is not Freudian. Not all psychoanalysis is Freudian — they aren’t synonyms. The Tavistock follows strands of psychoanalytic theory that branched off from Freudianism over 70 years ago. The concepts it uses are not built on the concept of the bestial self (such as the idea of being driven by sexual instincts) at all. Instead, they are built on ideas that completely rejected that approach. There was a big bust up about it in the 1940s and 1950s, because they had completely different (and largely incompatible) conceptualisations of the formation of the unconscious

Freud was honoury vice president of the Portman Clinic which merged with the Tavistock, there is literally a statue of him outside the building and of their psychoanalysis services they say this:

"Psychoanalysis is based on the modern developments of the theories of Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that bad thoughts and experiences from childhood are repressed but continue to influence your feelings as an adult."

Obviously there have been developments in psychoanalysis since Freud's time, and there's reportedly a far smattering of Jungians working at GIDS - who have equally reactionary ideas about gender - but it would be incorrect to say Freudian thought no longer has influence at the Tavistock.

 

[kabbes]

Freud was honoury vice president of the Portman Clinic which merged with the Tavistock, there is literally a statue of him outside the building and of their psychoanalysis services they say this:

"Psychoanalysis is based on the modern developments of the theories of Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that bad thoughts and experiences from childhood are repressed but continue to influence your feelings as an adult."

Obviously there have been developments in psychoanalysis since Freud's time, and there's reportedly a far smattering of Jungians working at GIDS - who have equally reactionary ideas about gender - but it would be incorrect to say Freudian thought no longer has influence at the Tavistock.

There is nothing inconsistent in that statement. Psychoanalysis is indeed based on the modern developments of Freud, who did indeed believe that early experiences influence the adult. However, that doesn't mean that modern psychoanalysis as practised by the Tavistock bears much relationship to Freudian psychoanalysis. Classic Freudianism is based on the bestial self, i.e. that humans are driven by instinctive urges that get repressed. It is the repression of these instincts that creates the unconscious. By contrast, the British school of psychoanalysis is based on the relational self (which Freud also started to develop in his late years, but is really a post-Freudian approach and not classically associated with Freud). The relational self sees life expressing and playing out relational patterns. It is not instincts that get repressed, but rather important relationships that can't be contained within awareness. These two approaches are incompatible. Now, I'm aware that I'm no expert on this subject, nor am I even slightly expert regarding the Tavistock. But I do know that the Tavistock is built on the strands of the British school that use object relations theory. That's quite distinct from Freudianism.

To be honest, this subject is deep and complex and I know just enough about it to know that I don't know that much about it. If I were you, however, I would be cautious about making definitive statement about the psychoanalysis practised by the Tavistock based on a statue and a generic line from the public-facing part of their website.

 

[smokedout]

There is nothing inconsistent in that statement. Psychoanalysis is indeed based on the modern developments of Freud, who did indeed believe that early experiences influence the adult. However, that doesn't mean that modern psychoanalysis as practised by the Tavistock bears much relationship to Freudian psychoanalysis. Classic Freudianism is based on the bestial self, i.e. that humans are driven by instinctive urges that get repressed. It is the repression of these instincts that creates the unconscious. By contrast, the British school of psychoanalysis is based on the relational self (which Freud also started to develop in his late years, but is really a post-Freudian approach and not classically associated with Freud). The relational self sees life expressing and playing out relational patterns. It is not instincts that get repressed, but rather important relationships that can't be contained within awareness. These two approaches are incompatible. Now, I'm aware that I'm no expert on this subject, nor am I even slightly expert regarding the Tavistock. But I do know that the Tavistock is built on the strands of the British school that use object relations theory. That's quite distinct from Freudianism.

To be honest, this subject is deep and complex and I know just enough about it to know that I don't know that much about it. If I were you, however, I would be cautious about making definitive statement about the psychoanalysis practised by the Tavistock based on a statue and a generic line from the public-facing part of their website.

It's more based on the testimony of people who've used the service and the crap Tavistock whistleblower Marcus Evans has been putting out in his new book: Here's A Load of Stuff About Trans People That I Just Made Up In My Head.

At this point, Freud raises his head, as they discuss envy and rivalry within family dynamics, asserting that ‘we believe unconscious envy has a part to play in the psychology of some trans-identities’.

Freud pretty much sticks around for the rest of the book.

I asked Marcus to throw some light on this for me, asking,“Would you describe your approach as Freudian?”

He told me:

“I would describe it as a psychoanalytic approach… obviously Freud was the lead on psychoanalysis but there are several theories explored (in the book). A psychoanalytic approach can throw light on the unconscious forces in the mind that lie behind the presentation of gender dysphoria. A thorough examination of the individual and the psychological influences and defences that motivate them can prepare the individual for their future life, whatever decisions they make in relation to gender transition. This exploration needs to take place in a supportive therapeutic environment with the therapist adopting a position of neutrality and curiosity. In our experience, we think that all children and where appropriate their families, should go through a period of thorough, in depth therapeutic exploration before embarking on any concrete medical interventions. Children are often seduced by the attraction of concrete solutions to psychological problems. These short term solutions often have hidden long terms costs.”

https://lilymaynard. (break) com/susan-marcus-evans-gender-dysphoria-a-review/

 

[kabbes]

But don’t you see that your quote there pretty much does the opposite to the thing you are saying? The writer interprets something as “Freudian”. They then ask the analyst if this is right, and the response is basically, “not really”! The analyst is asked if they would they describe themselves as Freudian and the response is, “I would describe it as psychoanalytic” — ie the analyst is making a distinction. The analyst agrees that Freud was “the lead” — ie he started it all off— but then says there are “several theories explored”. This is typical for the way an expert in something tries to use the popular understanding of it as a way into explaining further depth. In other words, the suggestion of Freudianism is always the interpretation of the (inexpert) writer of the piece, not the analyst himself.

When you read the article, it is clear that Evans is no Freudian, in fact. There are clues if you know a bit about the various schools, such as his line, “It may also lead to a development of a phantasy of the death of the self and the rebirth of a new self.” The use of the concept of “phantasy” there is Kleinism — Melanie Klein was one of the founders of object relations theory within the relational self and was the one who had a big bust up with Anna Freud in the 1940s, leading to the split I was talking about earlier. Evans is using “phantasy” in terms of object relations — the death of the “bad self”, essentially, is my amateur reading of it. This is a defence against having a part of the self that the mind finds reprehensible.

Similarly, this bit:

The Evanses see trans-identification as likely to be a defence against past psychological trauma, both external and internal. They suggest that the trans-identified young person has “a mind at odds with the physically sexed body” noting that many of them “have complex needs with co-morbid problems such as autism, histories of abuse or trauma, social phobias, depression, eating disorders and other mental health symptoms”. Because of this, a thorough assessment of all areas of the young person’s life is necessary. They believe that such work will benefit a young person whether or not they go on to transition.

They’re talking here about how things like traumatic relationships and events become part of the unconscious, and that various psychic defences result. Again, this is all relational stuff.

I’d also note the bold sentence, by the way. They’re saying in that quote that transition may well be the best way for somebody to resolve the tension within them. But regardless of this, it is helpful to also deal with the relational structures that may well have caused various co-morbidities too. In a way, this is an article of faith for psychoanalysis — everybody would benefit from it.

I do have criticisms of this British school of psychoanalysis. However, these aren’t anything to do with the caricature being painted of it, or it’s relational underpinnings. When I look at what Evans actually said in that article you quote, I can’t honestly see much in it that I would massively disagree with. He’s simply recognising that nobody is born as a ready-made person, but are formed by the interaction of intra-psychic processes with social circumstances. I don’t disagree with that. He’s then suggesting that in his experience, clients presenting with a trans-identity have things to deal with that aren’t resolved just by performing a medical procedure. I have no way of verifying that statement, but it certainly doesn’t seem like a surprising one to make.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I will just observe that the debate has become needlessly vitriolic. On the face of things there is very little to argue about - a plurality of people in UK polls support self-identification and use of toilet facilities aligned with that. But there just hasn't been a discussion about how society uses language around gender. Government should be having these discussions and should be arranging citizens' assemblies to find a way through, but instead it is shamefully exploiting the whole thing as a wedge issue. This has I feel led to people feeling that definitions have been foisted on them by unaccountable entities - and this is creating anger. This has been compounded by some very clumsy use of language (e.g. 'menstruators', 'womb-havers') - supposedly to be more precise about language for (amongst other things) medical reasons - but I see no reason for e.g. smear tests why you couldn't just say 'women and trans men'.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I quite agree Wolveryeti that this 'debate' is too vitriolic. People are routinely accused of bigotry and transphobia on the 'gender critical' side, and both sides (and people in between) are routinely accused of homophobia and misogyny. This happens on urban, but is much worse 'out there'. Bad faith is too often assumed to be the default assumption for your opponents. This drives many to adopt a more extreme view than they might otherwise adopt. It also drives people away.

You mention polling, but polling does not reveal any settled opinions. What it does show is a lot of uncertainty, lots of 'don't knows'. You mention 'plurality' of the population thinking one thing, not a majority. People's understanding of transgender varies a lot, many assuming transgender means of necessity that surgery or hormone treatment is required. For some their views change when they realise this may not be the case.

I can well understand some transgender people being really impatient on this issue, as it affects their lives directly and personally. But others have strong views too which are widely held.

 

[smokedout]

But don’t you see that your quote there pretty much does the opposite to the thing you are saying? The writer interprets something as “Freudian”. They then ask the analyst if this is right, and the response is basically, “not really”! The analyst is asked if they would they describe themselves as Freudian and the response is, “I would describe it as psychoanalytic” — ie the analyst is making a distinction. The analyst agrees that Freud was “the lead” — ie he started it all off— but then says there are “several theories explored”. This is typical for the way an expert in something tries to use the popular understanding of it as a way into explaining further depth. In other words, the suggestion of Freudianism is always the interpretation of the (inexpert) writer of the piece, not the analyst himself.

When you read the article, it is clear that Evans is no Freudian, in fact. There are clues if you know a bit about the various schools, such as his line, “It may also lead to a development of a phantasy of the death of the self and the rebirth of a new self.” The use of the concept of “phantasy” there is Kleinism — Melanie Klein was one of the founders of object relations theory within the relational self and was the one who had a big bust up with Anna Freud in the 1940s, leading to the split I was talking about earlier. Evans is using “phantasy” in terms of object relations — the death of the “bad self”, essentially, is my amateur reading of it. This is a defence against having a part of the self that the mind finds reprehensible.

Similarly, this bit:


They’re talking here about how things like traumatic relationships and events become part of the unconscious, and that various psychic defences result. Again, this is all relational stuff.

I’d also note the bold sentence, by the way. They’re saying in that quote that transition may well be the best way for somebody to resolve the tension within them. But regardless of this, it is helpful to also deal with the relational structures that may well have caused various co-morbidities too. In a way, this is an article of faith for psychoanalysis — everybody would benefit from it.

I do have criticisms of this British school of psychoanalysis. However, these aren’t anything to do with the caricature being painted of it, or it’s relational underpinnings. When I look at what Evans actually said in that article you quote, I can’t honestly see much in it that I would massively disagree with. He’s simply recognising that nobody is born as a ready-made person, but are formed by the interaction of intra-psychic processes with social circumstances. I don’t disagree with that. He’s then suggesting that in his experience, clients presenting with a trans-identity have things to deal with that aren’t resolved just by performing a medical procedure. I have no way of verifying that statement, but it certainly doesn’t seem like a surprising one to make.

"in his experience" lol

I'm not aware of him ever claiming he has treated a trans child, he worked in adult services, and the Tavistock do not treat gender dysphoria in adults. He may have come across some trans adult patients in the course of his work but he has never spoken of doing any in depth therapeautic work concerning their gender identity with them, and the way he discusses them is somewhat odd.

His wife and co-author Sue Evans was a nurse when she worked at GIDS, so would not have been involved in any in depth psychoanalytic work either, and it's unclear whether she worked there for more than a year, she's been relentlessly cagey about it.

There should be no more assumption that a child presenting as trans needs psychoanalysis than there should be if a child presents as gay or lesbian, and I couldn't really care less whether the therapist is more influenced by Klein, Freud or Jung. That doesn't mean counselling or therapy is never appropriate, or that anyone should be rushed into treatment, and they very much aren't currently. Out of around 3000 referrals only 141 kids were referred for hormone blockers in the most recent period according to the evidence in the Bell case.

His mealy mouthed comments about whether they go on to transition or not are disingenuous. Psychoanalysis takes a long time, and time is a factor when puberty has begun. And psychoanalysis aiming to change a person's gender identity is harmful, it is not benign. It is conversion therapy.

Nowhere does he acknowledge what both research and clinical experience shows which is that when a cross sexed identity is persistent and insistent throughout childhood and lasts into puberty then the child almost always goes on to become a trans adult - and these are the only kids that end up having any treatment in the UK. Nowhere does he acknowledge that it is quite likely that a child presenting as trans, is just trans, and that's okay. He has spoken at events alongside supporters of conversion therapy organised by virulent transphobes Posie Parker and Venice Allen.

He has repeatedly compared being trans to anorexia. He regularly scare-mongers about a shadowy trans lobby shutting down research. He has spoken approvingly of the work of Kenneth Zucker, whose recommendations included forcing trans children to play with toys and wear clothes associated with their biological sex. It is pretty clear from his actions what he believes which is that trans children should be subject to intrusive psychoanalysis in an attempt to cure them. He is an advocate of conversion therapy and should have no part in this debate. And the bats can fuck off as well.

 

[belboid]

I see the good ol' grauniad has decided that the most appropriate person to write a piece on Stock is Rachel Cooke. The woman who completely misrepresented Amia Srivanan's argument when interviewing her, and walking out because she, AM, 'drinking the Kool Aid that is Judith Butler' and whose twitter profile is a transphobic cartoon. And who is too think to understand that airbnb's dont leave you dinner.

May as well let Yaxley-Lennon write about muslim values.

 

[8ball]

I see the good ol' grauniad has decided that the most appropriate person to write a piece on Stock is Rachel Cooke. The woman who completely misrepresented Amia Srivanan's argument when interviewing her, and walking out because she, AM, 'drinking the Kool Aid that is Judith Butler' and whose twitter profile is a transphobic cartoon. And who is too think to understand that airbnb's dont leave you dinner.

May as well let Yaxley-Lennon write about muslim values.

The Guardian (particularly the UK as opposed to US version) has form when it comes to this, but I’m still feeling disappointed for some reason. This is in no way a good faith article.

 

[little_legs]

You mention polling, but polling does not reveal any settled opinions. What it does show is a lot of uncertainty, lots of 'don't knows'. You mention 'plurality' of the population thinking one thing, not a majority. People's understanding of transgender varies a lot, many assuming transgender means of necessity that surgery or hormone treatment is required. For some their views change when they realise this may not be the case.

I can well understand some transgender people being really impatient on this issue, as it affects their lives directly and personally. But others have strong views too which are widely held.

Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights, with the majority getting larger the younger the survey sample is. This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough.

 

[bimble]

This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough.

Give it a rest ffs. Unless writing that made you feel really good and or clever, in which case whatever floats yr boat i suppose.

 

[little_legs]

Give it a rest ffs. Unless writing that made you feel really good and or clever, in which case whatever floats yr boat i suppose.

That thing about the surveys must have been reiterated on this thread a few times, I am probably guilty of repeating the obvious.

I doesn't make me feel good or smart to point out that trans exclusionary statements and posts are being made on here all the fucking time.

 

[8ball]

I don't know about the overall polling landscape but this one is something of a curate's egg.

 

[Athos]

Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights...

I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate picture of what opinion polls show. For instance, the one 8ball referred to shows that most people think that trans women who've not had surgery should not be allowed into women's changing rooms (which would actually amount to rolling back existing trans rights).

 

[bimble]

little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough" was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.

 

[Athos]

little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough" was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.

It's an absolutely bonkers statement. There's a handful of people here who are quite open about the fact that they don't consider trans women to be women. Not only are they not radfems, but even they think trans women should be protected from harm (albeit not to the detriment of cis women's rights, with which they consider there to be a tension). Their position isn't based on trans women not being feminine enough, but on them being of the male sex. Notwithstanding that I don't agree with everything they say, the idea that they're brainwashed is pretty arrogant.

 

[little_legs]

I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate picture of what opinion polls show. For instance, the one 8ball referred to shows that most people think that trans women who've not had surgery should not be allowed into women's changing rooms (which would actually amount to rolling back existing trans rights).

But it does show that as whole UK is not particularly transphobic, and that people under 25 are more accepting of trans women regardless of whether they had a reassignment surgery.

 

[Athos]

But it does show that a whole UK is not particularly transphobic, and that people under 25 are more accepting of trans women regardless of whether they had a reassignment surgery.

Yes, it does show that, too.

 

[little_legs]

little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough" was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.

Aye, I accept it's not helpful. Maybe I should have said that it feels like a lot of the posts on this site appear to be influenced by the appalling opinions of terf journalists. My apologies.

 

[little_legs]

It's an absolutely bonkers statement. There's a handful of people here who are quite open about the fact that they don't consider trans women to be women. Not only are they not radfems, but even they think trans women should be protected from harm (albeit not to the detriment of cis women's rights, with which they consider there to be a tension). Their position isn't based on trans women not being feminine enough, but on them being of the male sex. Notwithstanding that I don't agree with everything they say, the idea that they're brainwashed is pretty arrogant.

Protected like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.

 

[bimble]

Aye, I accept it's not helpful. Maybe I should have said that it feels like a lot of the posts on this site appear to be influenced by the appalling opinions of terf journalists. My apologies.

No apology necessary! I don't think your post was about the mental states or points of view of anyone apart from you tbh, and i wasn't offended or anything.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights, with the majority getting larger the younger the survey sample is. This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem not feminine enough.

Seeing as you are replying to me I think it's safe to assume that I am being lumped in with brainwashed radfems. In which case thanks at least for not calling me a fascist or right wing Christian. Small mercies. Anyhow, I wouldn't even call my self a feminist necessarily, not without reservations. I also don't think I'm brainwashed at all. Enquiring mind and all that. All I was doing was pointing out that the polling on this issue is not straightforward. Even if it was, either way, it still wouldn't say who was right, just what most, or a plurality, of people thought. My doubts and uncertainties around all of this won't go away until I am convinced. I'm not alone in that.

 

[Athos]

Protected like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.

I guess you'd have to ask them.

 

[bimble]

Protected like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.

Who are these people who write for the guardian and are also paid by American evangelists? Can you say a name an example?