Is this woman a transphobe?

[iona]

Apologies to any trans people if this seem fatuous and not my intention in any way to trivialise being trans. But I do wonder whether there might be some people who, 20 years ago, no, it would not have occurred to them to transition. And they would have lived their lives, and been OK, maybe it would have felt like something was missing, but they wouldn't be miserable or suicidal. And now, someone exactly the same as that person might think 'I could be trans' and explore it and conclude that they are, and they transition and they are also fine, and probably better than they would have been if they hadn't transitioned. They'd have to live with the difficulties of being a trans person, but been happier in other ways. I just wonder if we're making too big a thing of it? It doesn't have to solve everything or ruin everything in a person's life.

It didn't occur to me to transition, until it did, and that probably wouldn't have happened without the internet and being able to read about other people's experiences that don't fit the standard "always knew for certain since early childhood that I was a [man/woman] trapped in a [woman's/man's] body" narrative.

It's hard to say how much dysphoria etc just didn't exist as an issue for me vs how much was probably there but hidden behind the much bigger problem of trying to live in a neurotypical world with no idea that I wasn't. It was never a glaring, obvious thing but there's stuff I can look back on now and be like ohh that makes sense. I didn't hate living as a woman or my own body before but I'm definitely more comfortable with it now.

I'm aware that I've been lucky and lots of trans people don't have the privilege of living in such tolerant places or "passing" as cis, but that's pretty much all it is to me - a minor, unimportant detail about my life.

 

[Rob Ray]

This primarily affects how many women see the world, see men. Men aren't to be trusted.

What do you think the benefit is to a man publicly declaring themselves a woman and then attempting to live in that fashion, generally speaking?

We have one quite unpleasant offering, which is that declaring yourself a woman grants predatory men access to vulnerable women. This is largely countered by the quite obvious point that predators don't generally need to go to the trouble of presenting a target on their back for every bigot to aim at if their aim is to abuse people, and indeed it's often going to be actively counterproductive as it puts them in a spotlight. Indeed in the cases where it does happen it's nearly guaranteed to be front page news. Trans people have the opposite problem to cis men, in fact, because men can usually rely on patriarchy to bail them out on an assault/rape charge whereas trans people are often pre-emptively seen as potential wrong-uns.

But beyond that, what other reasons?

 

[Sweet FA]

What do you think the benefit is to a man publicly declaring themselves a woman and then attempting to live in that fashion, generally speaking?

Because that's who they are. To live happily? To stop them harming themselves? To be?

That is such a weird post.

 

[Rob Ray]

Because that's who they are. To live happily? To stop them harming themselves? To be?

That is such a weird post.

The actual reasons are obvious, I'm talking about what reasons the "untrusting public" might project onto this trope of Man Pretends They're a Woman.

 

[Santino]

What do you think the benefit is to a man publicly declaring themselves a woman and then attempting to live in that fashion, generally speaking?

We have one quite unpleasant offering, which is that declaring yourself a woman grants predatory men access to vulnerable women. This is largely countered by the quite obvious point that predators don't generally need to go to the trouble of presenting a target on their back for every bigot to aim at if their aim is to abuse people, and indeed it's often going to be actively counterproductive as it actively puts them in a spotlight. Indeed in the cases where it does happen it's nearly guaranteed to be front page news. Trans people have the opposite problem to cis men, in fact, because men can usually rely on patriarchy to bail them out on an assault/rape charge whereas trans people are often pre-emptively seen as potential wrong-uns.

But beyond that, what other reasons?

Do men need to become priests or children's entertainers to access victims or is it simply one of the ways available to them?

 

[Rob Ray]

Becoming a priest or a children's entertainer or a teacher doesn't involve becoming an untrusted social pariah though, nor does it risk losing you family, friends, income etc. In fact it generally increases trust and authority, leaves your position in the patriarchy untouched, and is, broadly, considered "respectable behaviour" (up until the entire profession becomes tainted by association, of course). There's very clear benefits to taking such jobs and very little downside - in fact they're quite good examples of the many, many easier ways people can find to be abusive.

Hell you want people to be suspicious of? The single easiest way an abusive man can get unfettered, permanent and privileged access to vulnerable women is to join the police force. We literally tell survivors to go to them for help, give their words extra weight in court and lionise their work in endless TV shows.

 

[Santino]

It's an important principle of safeguarding to assume that if there is a loophole to be exploited, that someone will exploit it, even and especially if it seems like it would be too much trouble for someone to exploit it. The very fact of assuming that no one would bother to use a method to access victims because it's too much bother or too risky makes that method more attractive.

 

[Knotted]

The splits that have occurred on here, at the Anarchist Book Fair, and elsewhere, surely show that this is not something that easily reduces to sides. But there is pull and push creating sides (at least in the eyes of some), for sure, and that certainly involves ideology.

For some, anyone who doesn't meet certain tests of ideological purity is in danger of having their position reduced to being 'over there'. We've seen this happen on here. It happened recently on a thread discussing Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a long-time campaigner for the rights of gay people in a part of the world that still criminalises them. But she once refused to agree that trans women are women when pressed to do so, preferring to say that trans women are trans women (following up with a statement of support for trans people). She fails the purity test so she is 'over there'. In the extreme version, she is a bigot, no better than the rest of them. That certainly feels like an ideological push to me.

Yes, I agree with all of the above (including that it all involves ideology). Discussing things in terms of ideology also papers over nuances people might hold eg. on women sport or where to house dangerous trans women prisoners. There's also a problem that the real existing campaigns/discourse may not actually be over biological identity ideology versus gender identity ideology but are actually likely to be over access to medical care.

Looking back at my post the other night it was way too general and people likely didn't get it. But we should all be suspicious when people denounce "ideologies" in general (not that was what Santino was doing). Its a non-materialist way of looking at the world.

Red Cat Basically an ideology is a system of ideas. Whatever that means exactly, to analyse political stances in terms of ideology is to ignore what motivates that ideology and to tend to ignore the general messiness of ideology in real time.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's an important principle of safeguarding to assume that if there is a loophole to be exploited, that someone will exploit it, even and especially if it seems like it would be too much trouble for someone to exploit it. The very fact of assuming that no one would bother to use a method to access victims because it's too much bother or too risky makes that method more attractive.

This sounds good in theory, but in practice what's happening isn't covering all the possible angles, no matter how unlikely, but obsessing over one.

As I understand it, there are guidelines everywhere from women's shelters to prisons over how to deal with abusive people, whether or not they happen to be trans. The conversation within the services is ongoing and generally, I hear, fairly nuanced (more in the former than the latter). What is going on in broader conversation, by contrast, is a public moral panic demanding Solution To Problem. Which as is often the case, partially stems from its position as a political football and its use as a weapon by bad actors.

So the idea becomes to "reform the guidelines," which in practice means throwing trans people to the wolves, because even though the arguments for declaring yourself a woman as a path to abusive behaviour make very little sense it's advantageous to do something simple and bold sounding, as a way to placate the shouty folk.

 

[Dan Can]

Becoming a priest or a children's entertainer or a teacher doesn't involve becoming an untrusted social pariah though, ....

Let's not forget politicians.

So on the Aimee Challenor thread I mentioned that women get suspended off twitter for saying they are women and that twitter has gained a reputation for being aggressively anti-gender critical feminists and pro-TRAs. I was challenged for examples - fair enough - and I gave one, but this one came up in my twitter feed today which is another example where I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can meaningfully call this thread "transphobic"

View attachment 260797

I've cut and pasted the rest of the thread below;




Anyway, this is what happened.


View attachment 260798

What am I missing if I don't think this thread is "transphobic"?

Fist of all Co-op, my apologies foe being so late to the party, I've only just discovered this web site.
But this is an issue that I have researched a bit, in the process of opposing bigoted views on another website.
I'm not LGBT, trans or anything. I am male, it says so on my birth certificate and I identify as male.
I also recognise the clash of women claiming equal rights for themselves, but wanting to deny equality to trans people.
Equality is for all, and there is no heirarchy of equality.

But to address some of your comments: trans people may not be born out of simply want they want to be, it can aslo be a physiological issue for them.
Imagine if you will, the number of people born with deformities, whether visible or not. I am thinking of facial, limb, etc type deformities.
It doesn't take much vision to realise that many people are born with genital deformities, which we are obviouly not aware of. No-one would dare to be frank (no pun intended, hence the lower case "f") about their personal genital deformity. It would expose them to horrific abuse and ridicule. So they grow up pretending to be normal From recollection, I think it's about 7% of the population are born with either genital deformities, or genitals that are difficult to allocate into the binary male-Female category. And of course, there are only the binary classification: Male or Female.

Then consider that when a baby is born, it is a legal requirment that their birth (which must include their sex) is registered within the first 14 days, or something like that.
The person attending the birth could be a partner, a mid-wife, a bystander, or just about anything not resembling a specialist urologist, andrologists, or gynecologists.
In the case of some doubt about the sex of a baby at birth, sometimes a 'best guess' must suffice in order to register the birth.
Of course I am familier with the UK scenario. Imagine the suitiuation in less well developed countries.

So in conclusion, your assumption that trans people exist is based purely on a whim is, iper se, well on the way to being trans-phobic.
Once you recognise and accept that sex is not binary, your trans-phobia dissapears.

M apologies for any spelling mistakes, my spelling is normally reasonable. and I'm not dyslexic, it's my typing that usually lets me down.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning, that yes, of course there are predatory males, who will adopt any guise or disguise in order to render them easy access to potential victims.
Psychologically, that should apply also to trans-males, who were born determined as females. If thay are physiologically males, they will have the same or similar motivation as those trans females who were determined to be males at birth. Yet the argument about predatory males adopting the gender identity of female is the only argument ever offered against trans people.

 

[andysays]

It's an important principle of safeguarding to assume that if there is a loophole to be exploited, that someone will exploit it, even and especially if it seems like it would be too much trouble for someone to exploit it. The very fact of assuming that no one would bother to use a method to access victims because it's too much bother or too risky makes that method more attractive.

No one is assuming that it won't be exploited.

What many people on this thread and elsewhere are objecting to is that some are focusing on the tiny number who are seeking to exploiting the loophole to the exclusion of all else, and the apparent assumption by some that everyone who declares themselves trans is doing it in order to prey on women.

 

[Santino]

Let's not forget politicians.

Fist of all Co-op, my apologies foe being so late to the party, I've only just discovered this web site.
But this is an issue that I have researched a bit, in the process of opposing bigoted views on another website.
I'm not LGBT, trans or anything. I am male, it says so on my birth certificate and I identify as male.
I also recognise the clash of women claiming equal rights for themselves, but wanting to deny equality to trans people.
Equality is for all, and there is no heirarchy of equality.

But to address some of your comments: trans people may not be born out of simply want they want to be, it can aslo be a physiological issue for them.
Imagine if you will, the number of people born with deformities, whether visible or not. I am thinking of facial, limb, etc type deformities.
It doesn't take much vision to realise that many people are born with genital deformities, which we are obviouly not aware of. No-one would dare to be frank (no pun intended, hence the lower case "f") about their personal genital deformity. It would expose them to horrific abuse and ridicule. So they grow up pretending to be normal From recollection, I think it's about 7% of the population are born with either genital deformities, or genitals that are difficult to allocate into the binary male-Female category. And of course, there are only the binary classification: Male or Female.

Then consider that when a baby is born, it is a legal requirment that their birth (which must include their sex) is registered within the first 14 days, or something like that.
The person attending the birth could be a partner, a mid-wife, a bystander, or just about anything not resembling a specialist urologist, andrologists, or gynecologists.
In the case of some doubt about the sex of a baby at birth, sometimes a 'best guess' must suffice in order to register the birth.
Of course I am familier with the UK scenario. Imagine the suitiuation in less well developed countries.

So in conclusion, your assumption that trans people exist is based purely on a whim is, iper se, well on the way to being trans-phobic.
Once you recognise and accept that sex is not binary, your trans-phobia dissapears.

M apologies for any spelling mistakes, my spelling is normally reasonable. and I'm not dyslexic, it's my typing that usually lets me down.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning, that yes, of course there are predatory males, who will adopt any guise or disguise in order to render them easy access to potential victims.
Psychologically, that should apply also to trans-males, who were born determined as females. If thay are physiologically males, they will have the same or similar motivation as those trans females who were determined to be males at birth. Yet the argument about predatory males adopting the gender identity of female is the only argument ever offered against trans people.

I don't think this helps anyone?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Let's just hope by quoting they've not summoned coop

 

[Knotted]

Apologies to any trans people if this seem fatuous and not my intention in any way to trivialise being trans. But I do wonder whether there might be some people who, 20 years ago, no, it would not have occurred to them to transition. And they would have lived their lives, and been OK, maybe it would have felt like something was missing, but they wouldn't be miserable or suicidal. And now, someone exactly the same as that person might think 'I could be trans' and explore it and conclude that they are, and they transition and they are also fine, and probably better than they would have been if they hadn't transitioned. They'd have to live with the difficulties of being a trans person, but been happier in other ways. I just wonder if we're making too big a thing of it? It doesn't have to solve everything or ruin everything in a person's life.

I don't want to appear like an expert or anything, but from what I can see is that there are a variety of trans experiences and this here is a good video by someone much as you describe it which may be of interest to you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the case of some doubt about the sex of a baby at birth, sometimes a 'best guess' must suffice in order to register the birth.
Of course I am familier with the UK scenario. Imagine the suitiuation in less well developed countries.

In the vast majority of cases, it's not really a guess, though. And here we are back to the definitional confusions that cause people to talk past one another.

Sexual reproduction is binary - it involves the mixing of two sets of genetic information to create a single cell that contains this mix plus a bit of information passed on unmixed only by the female in the mitochondria. Which side of this is determined to be 'female' and which 'male' can be seen as coming down to which side has the cell containing the mitochondria, which is designated 'female'. The male only contributes DNA to the nucleus.

Biology is messy. The above applies almost universally in animals and plants where they reproduce sexually. In fungi, it's a bit more complicated, but generally it is only eukaryotes that reproduce sexually (but not all eukaryotes) and when they do so, it is by the above binary mechanism. Within that, there is of course huge variety when you zoom out from the level of fertilisation to look at the bodies and behaviours of the organisms that are reproducing. There are organisms like slugs and many plants that are hermaphrodites, fish that can change sex, sparrows that only mate with one half of the opposite sex, insects in which females' genomes contain twice the amount of DNA as the males' as males are produced from unfertilised eggs. But the sexual reproduction mechanism itself is strictly binary - a female egg is fertilised by a male sperm to produce new life.

In humans, there are two reproductive sexes at the zoomed-out whole organism level. If you're reproducing, you're either one or the other. We can only reproduce as females, whose gonads have become ovaries and produced eggs, or as males, whose gonads have become testes and produced sperm. Some people can't do either, nobody can do both, and nobody can switch from one to the other. So there are two biological reproductive classes. That's binary. And it's no coincidence that two social classes, or genders, have grown at a cultural level to regulate behaviour around those reproductive classes.

But of course the thing about culturally produced categories and sets of norms and behaviours is that they are dynamic and flexible. This is where imo it is important to work out whether you are talking about reproductive class (which is necessarily binary), secondary sexual characteristics (which are not binary) or gender (a social construct that we have some control over).

We're not the only animals that have socially constructed gender roles - chimps, elephants, probably orca also have them. And we're not the only animals with gender non-conformity - Frans de Waal has written about gender-non-conforming chimps, who are accepted by their troops in their non-conforming roles. We seem to be more confused than the chimps over this, though, at least in some of our societies. I'd argue that we suffer in our society from the legacy of Christianity in elevating gender roles to 'god-given' status. Whatever the truth of that, we're pretty confused about what is sex and what is gender, and how they interact with one another.

I apologise for the biology lecture above, but as someone who thinks more about other animals than humans, it seems to me that we have fewer problems dealing with biological sex in other organisms than we do with humans, and that there is a danger of human exceptionalism here, treating humans as if we were not evolved animals. The answers to some of these questions are difficult, but the answers to other questions are not so difficult. And the root of many of the disputes is a varying emphasis on reproductive class, which is rooted in biology but has caused all kinds of societal repression in the way gender roles have been constructed around it. I don't see gender as quite the wholly negative thing that many gender critical people do. It has a function in regulating behaviour, for instance by providing social norms by which physically stronger males should behave towards females - it also performs that function in chimps and elephants. And for many of us, various aspects of gender play a role in sexual attraction. But I can also see (and have also suffered from) the ways people can feel trapped and oppressed by it.

Gender identity exists primarily in, and for, our interactions with one another. I'm not so sure I feel any kind of gender identity when I am on my own. It only arises when I am with others. When I am with others, yes something is there, whether I want it to be or not. I don't have good answers to much of this, but I think the answers have to be found at the societal level, in our interactions with one another, because that's the level at which the problems have been produced in the first place.

 

[smokedout]

It's an important principle of safeguarding to assume that if there is a loophole to be exploited, that someone will exploit it, even and especially if it seems like it would be too much trouble for someone to exploit it. The very fact of assuming that no one would bother to use a method to access victims because it's too much bother or too risky makes that method more attractive.

The way people throw that word around in this debate like they know anything about it and aren't just parroting something they read on a gender critical website.

It is an important principle of safeguarding to assess risks, establish the severity of those risks and introduce policies to mitigate against them. In England and Wales there has never been a recorded incident of a trans woman assaulting a woman or child in a woman's changing room, toilet or shelter, and only one case in Scotland. As such trans inclusion would appear to be very low risk. There have been ample cases of male teachers, healthcare workers and police officers sexually assaulting women and children so perhaps that would be a more appropriate place to look if you genuinely wish to reduce risk.

It's understandable though why gender critical men might obssess over very low risk scenarios involving trans inclusion whilst neglecting measures which would drastically reduce risks but may also affect their lives.

It's an equally important principle of safeguarding that statutory measures only apply to children and a very small number of highly vulnerable adults. Women are not deemed vulnerable people either in law or safeguarding policies. Women are adults, equal to men and free to go about their lives on the same terms without a complex system of regulations and restrictions to protect them.

So to talk about real safeguarding and risk assessment, would it be a good safeguarding policy to force a 13 year old trans girls to use men's toilets and changing rooms alongside unvetted adult men? Does the risk she might pose in a women's toilet outweigh the risk she might face in the men's? And if so what is the evidence base for that?

 

[smokedout]

I don't see gender as quite the wholly negative thing that many gender critical people do. It has a function in regulating behaviour, for instance by providing social norms by which physically stronger males should behave towards females

Falls on the floor laughing. Yeah, it's done a really good job of doing that.

 

[Dan Can]

In the vast majority of cases, it's not really a guess, though. And here we are back to the definitional confusions that cause people to talk past one another.

Yes of course, little babjesus, the vast majority of people do not experience any confusion about their sex.
I did mention the figure of about 7% (which was a figure I deduced from medical discussion groups previously), so that would make the other 93%, i.e. the vast majority not experiencing any problems with determing their sex at birth.
So 7% is very much the minority, and battling bigotry, in all its froms, must be about battling bigotry aimed at minorities, which is where bigotry is invariable directed.

Sexual reproduction is binary - it involves the mixing of two sets of genetic information to create a single cell that contains this mix plus a bit of information passed on unmixed only by the female in the mitochondria. Which side of this is determined to be 'female' and which 'male' can be seen as coming down to which side has the cell containing the mitochondria, which is designated 'female'. The male only contributes DNA to the nucleus.

Again, you are ignoring the multiple cases of the difficulties experienced by couples in reproducing. If it wsn't for sperm donors, IVF, surrogacy and adoption the problems of reproduction would be far more common.
So reproduction isn't a simple binary issue, there are a multiple of problems experienced by regular couples.

Biology is messy.

Absolutely.

 

[Raheem]

So reproduction isn't a simple binary issue, there are a multiple of problems experienced by regular couples.

When you say "regular", how many times a week are we talking about?

 

[Cloo]

It is an important principle of safeguarding to assess risks, establish the severity of those risks and introduce policies to mitigate against them. In England and Wales there has never been a recorded incident of a trans woman assaulting a woman or child in a woman's changing room, toilet or shelter, and only one case in Scotland. As such trans inclusion would appear to be very low risk. There have been ample cases of male teachers, healthcare workers and police officers sexually assaulting women and children so perhaps that would be a more appropriate place to look if you genuinely wish to reduce risk.

Precisely this. There are many higher risk areas where nothing is done about it. Trans exclusion seems a 'simple' solution to this almost non-existent problem, although of course it's not at all simple in practice. The risk to women of trans access to spaces is minimal. The risk of exclusion to every individual trans person is significant if they effectively have to 'out' themselves every time they are out in public.

I have seen a response on Twitter to the effect of 'Oh, so because we can't stop all sexual violence against women, you're saying we shouldn't prevent one part of it where we can'. To which I suppose the anwer is 'Yes, if the 'answer' is causing much more significant danger to another group, and we should be focusing on better policing and training so that sexual violence is properly address and punished rather than shitting on trans people for the behaviour of abusive men'

 

[Dan Can]

When you say "regular", how many times a week are we talking about?

A bad choice of words on my part. It gives the impressions that there is something regular or normal about something, and that was what I should have avoided.
But I liked your quip.

 

[Red Cat]

Yes, I agree with all of the above (including that it all involves ideology). Discussing things in terms of ideology also papers over nuances people might hold eg. on women sport or where to house dangerous trans women prisoners. There's also a problem that the real existing campaigns/discourse may not actually be over biological identity ideology versus gender identity ideology but are actually likely to be over access to medical care.

Looking back at my post the other night it was way too general and people likely didn't get it. But we should all be suspicious when people denounce "ideologies" in general (not that was what Santino was doing). Its a non-materialist way of looking at the world.

Red Cat Basically an ideology is a system of ideas. Whatever that means exactly, to analyse political stances in terms of ideology is to ignore what motivates that ideology and to tend to ignore the general messiness of ideology in real time.

I don't follow you. I think we're talking past each other.

Given your definition of ideology, a system of ideas, how do you separate this from a political stance? What is a political stance if it isn't ideological i.e a system of ideas? What else is it? The material conditions that might give rise to a set of ideas doesn't make it not ideological, it just makes ideology something that has a material basis.

I also don't see how calling something ideological - i.e. an expression of a system of ideas - means ignoring what gives rise to them, that doesn't seem to be true either from observation or logically.

Calling something ideological isn't necessarily denouncing unless by ideological you mean a system of ideas that does not require evidence from outside of its own system or to be supported 'objective' material reality, whose ends are consciously political i.e to gain or maintain power.

I use ideological in various ways, in the Marxist way, these days usually more broadly as a system of ideas, and occasionally the last way (above). That's why I asked you what you meant by the word.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Mungy]

Has anyone changed their tune as a result of others repeating theirs?

Not on this issue. Over the years, my opinion, tune, thinking has been changed by threads on Urban.

 

[Dan Can]

That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.

I agree with you, littlebabyjesus, in that it's difficult to discuss the workings of sexual reporduction without employing the concept of sex. But that doesn't disprove that 'sex' is a socialy constructed concept. (Try discussing racism without using the socially constructed word 'race'.)

But the workings of sexual reproduction tend to be random, unpredictable and unreliable.
To take a simple example of striking a match on the side of a matchbox: the results can be unrelaible and unpredictable. But the randomness of that unpredictability and unreliability is limited to just a few random issues.
Whereas the unreliability and unpredictability of the workings of sexual reproduction are subject to a myriad random issues, so the unpredictable and unreliable results themselves become random.

While the word 'sex' to describe a social concept might be useful, (and there are societies where other concepts exist), the other socially constructed and mistaken concept is that sex is binary. it isn't. Granted for the majority of people it is binary, although the influence and effect of that binary sex determination varies enormously. But for a minority, sex is non-binary, and as you've indicated in your other posts, for examples in the animal kingdom, the non-binariness of sex is evident.
I think we should reconstruct our social concept of sex to be non-binary because the variety of the examples suggest it's more like a continuum, with male and female as the polar opposites of that continuum.
Granted trying to determine where the polar opposites exist is also fraught with problems. Perhaps a checklist of required features/attributes, etc. to determine your 'sex' is required, rather than a simple guess based on apparent genitalia, by unqualified attendees at birth. (But do we really want or need to go down that road?)
That would require the annulling of the 'socially constructed' requirement for births to be registered within a certain time frame, or the annulling of the other 'socially constructed' requirement so it allows the omitting of the sex at that registration.

 

[Joe Chi Min]

I've changed my views on these issues because of threads on here. Don't like to post as I realise I don't have answers and as a CIS male my opinions aren't that relevant.

And yet, here we are reading more self-indulgent tosh

 

[krtek a houby]

The Shrier book is causing more trouble

Japan publisher threatened over publication of trans-skeptical book

A Japanese publisher has received threats over its plan to publish a translated version of a controversial U.S. book questioning an increase in young women seeking gender transitions, its parent company said. Sankei Shimbun Publications Inc said Saturday it received an email threatening arson...

japantoday.com