Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Autism is not a psychiatric issue.
2. Not acknowledging something exists when it clearly does is definitely a lack of insight.

This is all quite stressful for me so again I'm going to have to leave it. I'm sorry if my posts are bothering anyone. I advocate for severely autistic people as part of my job and I encounter misconceptions on a regular basis. Dealing with it here is uncomfortable and I'm going to have to leave it. It's off topic anyway, apologies.

Nobody here is saying what you're suggesting though. Nobody has said that autism is a personality disorder. That being said, historically it was considered a psychiatric issue, in which mothers were blamed, for quite some time. So what's being suggested, by me, is that these concepts change, are contested. The criteria for ASD changes and are contested, currently by those who don't agree that Aspergers should've been dropped from the DSM, those that think the current criteria don't pick up girls, those that think PDA should be officially included in psychiatric classification systems forcing recognition by CAMHS etc.
 
So are you saying someone autistic isn't, if they say so?

I’m saying that an ASD diagnosis isn’t a fact. A person’s diagnosis may change several times.

And a ASD diagnosis isn’t a fact because ‘autism’ is a concept, a way of making sense of patterns of experience, it’s not a ‘thing’
 
Believe me, the people I work with are undeniably autistic. Or don't, but if you want to assume I'm lying there's no point in any further exchange here or anywhere
 
Believe me, the people I work with are undeniably autistic. Or don't, but if you want to assume I'm lying there's no point in any further exchange here or anywhere

Calm down.

How can one be ‘undeniably Autistic’?

You’re refusing to take on board what a number of posters have said about the subjectivity and impermanence of diagnoses and diagnostic categories, and getting yourself upset because of it.

Oh and also making some oppressive/damaging insinuations.

Yet somehow others are staying calm and you’re not.
 
mojo pixy, nobody has accused you of anything

There's an attempt to make sense of the kinds of concepts we use to describe the different ways we have of being human. I do think its relevant to the thread. What is gender? is it about biology? Is it only about biology? Is it only a social construction? Is dysmorphia a mental illness or a difference in a brain-body relationship etc. Where are the boundaries? Where are the limits of these categories? Are they useful, who are they useful to? etc
 
Calm down.

How can one be ‘undeniably Autistic’?

You’re refusing to take on board what a number of posters have said about the subjectivity and impermanence of diagnoses and diagnostic categories, and getting yourself upset because of it.

Oh and also making some oppressive/damaging insinuations.

Yet somehow others are staying calm and you’re not.

I'm not talking about borderline cases. I'm talking about people who don't talk, who have little to no ability to regulate their emotions, particularly anxiety. People who sit shaking their heads for hours on end or who ask and tell the same things again and again and again, who self-harm when their routines are broken or when something unexpected happens, even if it's raining or the bus is a minute late. That kind of autism.
 
Again, I apologise for my many off-topic posts and I'd appeal for this little digression to come to an end. I believe understanding has been reached, sorry to iona for misreading your posts
 
Nobody here is saying what you're suggesting though. Nobody has said that autism is a personality disorder. That being said, historically it was considered a psychiatric issue, in which mothers were blamed, for quite some time.

The ridiculous "cold mother" thesis, among others.
 
at what point does a "trans-identifying male prisoner" become a trans-woman or cease being a man?

not to mention, Manter, i would have appreciated some reference for a crucial claim in the report, namely "If self-declaration of gender becomes law, any trans-identifying male prisoner will be able to obtain a GRC and will automatically become eligible for transfer to a women’s prison". i know you didn't write the report: but it seems to me that if it's going to be relied upon then a mite more rigour would have been better.
 
Having had a quick look my first thoughts are that - as they are analysing data which appears in other reports rather than having been given firm statistics - that more problematic prisoners (ie those that posed a risk to or were at risk from other inmates, or those that were demanding being moved to a different prison) would maybe be more likely to be reported on, and that also that trans prisoners who either started their transition in prison or who had not legally transitioned and/or had GRS before conviction would also be more likely to be reported on. Trans women who had already legally transitioned and/or were already fairly well along the conventional journey of social medical and surgical transition at conviction and who were not regarded as dangerous or at risk would presumably just be in the women's prison system anyway, maybe unremarkably so - and they might not even be "out " as trans within the system.
That said, I do think there's some disquieting stuff in there, and I'm not against the issue being looked at, I just think it needs to be done carefully and with rigour.
 
Having had a quick look my first thoughts are that - as they are analysing data which appears in other reports rather than having been given firm statistics - that more problematic prisoners (ie those that posed a risk to or were at risk from other inmates, or those that were demanding being moved to a different prison) would maybe be more likely to be reported on, and that also that trans prisoners who either started their transition in prison or who had not legally transitioned and/or had GRS before conviction would also be more likely to be reported on. Trans women who had already legally transitioned and/or were already fairly well along the conventional journey of social medical and surgical transition at conviction and who were not regarded as dangerous or at risk would presumably just be in the women's prison system anyway, maybe unremarkably so - and they might not even be "out " as trans within the system.
That said, I do think there's some disquieting stuff in there, and I'm not against the issue being looked at, I just think it needs to be done carefully and with rigour.
given the movement of prisoners in the prison system i would not be surprised if some people in the reported total of trans prisoners had been counted twice. in addition, and further to my previous post, *even if* someone becomes eligible for transfer to a women's prison that does not mean that they will necessarily be transferred. i can foresee instances where someone who declares themselves to be a woman would be refused transfer, and i expect anyone who gives it a moment's thought will foresee such instances too.
 
Did you post that because you think the article about Lily was transphobic ?

No. I posted it as I came across it looking at that original article. I posted it without commenting as tbh the more I read and more I talk to people about this the more confused and unsure about my position I am. I've got friends falling out about this topic (the wider topic, not this specific article) all over the place.

I have some positions that I think would be called transphobic by some tbh.
 
I think there's a lot of people on here putting their arguments about certain trans discourses who aren't being outright transphobic, and there's been some great discussion. Posting articles from right wing newspapers that are outright transphobic isn't a particularly helpful contribution to the discussion. A lot of people are disputing the figures behind the claims in that article, e.g here
 
at what point does a "trans-identifying male prisoner" become a trans-woman or cease being a man?

not to mention, Manter, i would have appreciated some reference for a crucial claim in the report, namely "If self-declaration of gender becomes law, any trans-identifying male prisoner will be able to obtain a GRC and will automatically become eligible for transfer to a women’s prison". i know you didn't write the report: but it seems to me that if it's going to be relied upon then a mite more rigour would have been better.

It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them

Decisions to transfer serving prisoners between male or female prisons (or vice versa) should be based on clear criteria, with reasons given for the outcome and appeal processes clearly explained. As part of this process, it will be necessary to factor in the impact on and risks to those in current or potential establishments especially, for instance,in the women’s estate where many prisoners will have been the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse and may continue to be exceptionally vulnerable.

In any new policy, the operational tests or criteria applied to decision making, including location decisions, need to enable staff to balance the
views and wellbeing of thetransgender person with the need to ensure the safety and security of other prisoners, prison staff and the prison environment as a whole, including the maintenance of appropriate levels of decency and privacy. Where an assessment made against these
tests overrides the person’s view on how they should be treated, relevant evidence must be identified and relate to something that could not be reasonably managed if the person was located in a place consistent with the gender in which they identify.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/566828/transgender-review-findings-web.PDF
 
Last edited:
I think there's a lot of people on here putting their arguments about certain trans discourses who aren't being outright transphobic, and there's been some great discussion. Posting articles from right wing newspapers that are outright transphobic isn't a particularly helpful contribution to the discussion. A lot of people are disputing the figures behind the claims in that article, e.g here

you didn't need to look any further than my post 2420
 
It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Dender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them

Which will make it much easier to establish who raises these concerns for genuine reasons, and who clings to them to serve a different agenda.
 
Depends very much what the detail of the role is, IMO

Here's the job description.

"Every year the local constituency Labour Party elects ‘officers’ to carry out the organisational and campaigning priorities of the party. There are eight key posts that must be filled - chair, deputy chair, secretary, treasurer, vice-chair (membership) and vice-chair (policy), women’s officer and youth officer - and at least four of these must be women. The women’s officer must be a woman. "

"The aims of the women’s officer are to:

 Encourage women to join the party
 Encourage and empower women party members to play a full and active part in the party’s activities
 Build links with women in the wider electorate through campaigning, engaging on policy issues and two way communication
 Ensure that the priorities of the constituency reflect the views and concerns of women members and women in the wider community

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/labourclp96/pages/1278/attachments/original/1445544799/Job_Description_-_CLP_Womens_Officer.pdf?1445544799

How is a 19 year old who only began transitioning to live as a woman a year ago going to even begin to be the best person for this role? Would a 19 year old born woman have even been considered?
 
The irony of saying they'd be using the role to 'give women a voice' after what happened last week is what strikes me most.
Yep. Give women a voice, only not 52 year old lesbian women who disagree with us, we'll get them sacked to shut them up instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom