Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden

IIRC, there was kerfuffle a few years ago when an academic or researcher suggested the term 'Minor Attracted Person', I think specifically for talking about people who felt attraction to children but wanted to avoid acting on it and they suggested the term as a way of encouraging people to seek help rather than labelling them a paedophile when they hadn't actually done anything and were in fact appalled and distressed by experiencing sexual feelings towards minors, and such people do exist.

Which was of course reported as 'Leftie boffin says we have to call all paedophiles "minor attracted people" so as not to hurt their feelings!' - which was of course, not what was being said at all. And inevitably it got pulled into the transphobiasphere as somehow something to do with trans people.
 
IIRC, there was kerfuffle a few years ago when an academic or researcher suggested the term 'Minor Attracted Person', I think specifically for talking about people who felt attraction to children but wanted to avoid acting on it and they suggested the term as a way of encouraging people to seek help rather than labelling them a paedophile when they hadn't actually done anything and were in fact appalled and distressed by experiencing sexual feelings towards minors, and such people do exist.

Which was of course reported as 'Leftie boffin says we have to call all paedophiles "minor attracted people" so as not to hurt their feelings!' - which was of course, not what was being said at all. And inevitably it got pulled into the transphobiasphere as somehow something to do with trans people.
There was a documentary a few years ago about professionals trying to help people deal with such feelings before they did anything horrible. It was quite interesting though only caught part of it. If it leads to a few less kids being abused can only be a good thing.
 
Basically the same shit they did with gay people in the era of section 28.
I said this earlier on in the thread,

blargh

i still haven't quite adjusted to 'queer' being an acceptable word, although i suppose it's reasonable to have something that includes anyone who isn't quite L, G, B or T but who isn't really a gender conforming heterosexual.

and nonces trying to get in to semi-respectability under the gay rights (and successor) banner isn't entirely new - didn't p.i.e. try to get on the coat tails of what was happening in the 80s? and i vaguely remember getting something in the 90s when i was on the committee of a 'switchboard' organisation about some umbrella 'sexual minorities' thing which we decided not to touch with the proverbial.

from where i'm sitting, any nonce who tries to ally with us can fuck off, but there isn't an official committee to approve membership. not of course that it stops the far right using that against 'us'
As I heard it from older GLF activists, P.I.E. was more accepted / tolerated in the early days as gays and paedos were all illegal / socially unacceptable / scum of the earth. Not sure when the GLF shunned them but they were invisible and unacceptable when I came out in the early 80s.

Got to remember too in the '70s/'80s and into the '90s there were two things muddying the waters about paedophilia:
1) that many gay men were illegally having sex with under- aged men - because the age of consent was 21. A friend of mine was imprisoned in twenties for a consensual sexual relationship with a man a few years younger . Today they could legally marry, then he was imprisoned as a nonce.
2) there was a massive society wide denial of heterosexual paedophilia existing. There were few checks on men in positions of power and a general denial of this being something that a respectable family men would do. Feminists who raised the issue were 'man haters'. Young women were considered to be 'asking for it' Children who reported it were not believed. Prominent paedophiles got away with it. eg Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter etc
 
Well I remember in my childhood in the 80s how the 'dirty old man' was just a figure of fun, and men with underage girlfriends might be looked upon as 'lucky devils' wink wink, nudge nudge, not paedophiles. But as long as it was an older man and a young girl, not any other combination.
 
Well I remember in my childhood in the 80s how the 'dirty old man' was just a figure of fun, and men with underage girlfriends might be looked upon as 'lucky devils' wink wink, nudge nudge, not paedophiles. But as long as it was an older man and a young girl, not any other combination.
Yes it was shit. Just watch any 70s TV - that was a commonly accepted idea.
 
and nonces trying to get in to semi-respectability under the gay rights (and successor) banner isn't entirely new - didn't p.i.e. try to get on the coat tails of what was happening in the 80s? and i vaguely remember getting something in the 90s when i was on the committee of a 'switchboard' organisation about some umbrella 'sexual minorities' thing which we decided not to touch with the proverbial.

from where i'm sitting, any nonce who tries to ally with us can fuck off, but there isn't an official committee to approve membership. not of course that it stops the far right using that against 'us'
I'm not sure it's happening at all really beyond a couple of twitter accounts which may or may not be 4chan psyops. There's no contemporary organisation comparable to PIE I'm aware of. There's certainly no paedophile advocates speaking at queer theory conferences or in the LGTBQ press as there once were. Like so many gender critical concerns this all seems to be based on something that might happen but there's no evidence at all that it is happening.

Also worth remembering that liberating child sexuality and smashing the incest taboo were key demands amongst many second wave radical feminists. For every half century old dubious quote you might find from an early proponent of queer theory you can find far worse in the works of Shulamith Firestone and Kate Millet. Germaine Greer has personally boasted of being a pedarist. There's far more grounds to attack radical feminism for being rooted in paedophile apologism than there is queer theory.

Of course those attacks wouldn't be any fairer then the attacks on queer theory, because Greer aside (who's noncey comments and book came much later), a lot of people said some stupid things in the wake of the so called sexual revolution and most who are still alive have realised they were wrong and the harm their views caused and so have retracted their earlier positions.
 
Then there's this piece of crap from Spiked (not that I'd expect any better) How pornography forged the trans movement

The old 'John Money invented being trans and he was a paedo, so being trans is pervy and weird' (despite the fact that trans people have existed since forever and I think we can say didn't need to be 'invented', and 'trans is wrong because some trans women have sissy slave type fantasies' :rolleyes:

The obsession with John Money is weird, not least because he's not a particularly important person in trans history and when he does come up his name is usually uttered with contempt.

But also Money was gender critical. Although his later views seem quite inconsistent for many years he was adamant that gender was entirely socially constructed and that there was no such thing as an inherent or inborn sense of sex/gender. That's why he tried to raise a boy as a girl and covered up the failure of the experiment when it went disastrously wrong - a lie which would have a devastating impact on the treatment of intersex children for many subsequent years who were frequently assigned a sex based on whether the surgeons thought they could make a better looking penis or vagina.
 
The obsession with John Money is weird, not least because he's not a particularly important person in trans history and when he does come up his name is usually uttered with contempt.
Yeah, it's bizarre, as if all transgender people are reading up the weird, discredited views of this dodgy guy?

The article also mentions 'Oh girls are turning to being boys/non binary in a response to be sexual objectified as seen in porn' and I just think, or what if they want to do it for their own reasons? What if they find they're just happy and more comfortable with short hair and clothes that don't ask them to 'flaunt' their body shape? Is that porn's 'fault' for 'pushing' them that way or are they just rejecting that bullshit anyway and moving away from seeing themselves as only having value in terms of the male gaze?
 
Yeah, it's bizarre, as if all transgender people are reading up the weird, discredited views of this dodgy guy?

The article also mentions 'Oh girls are turning to being boys/non binary in a response to be sexual objectified as seen in porn' and I just think, or what if they want to do it for their own reasons? What if they find they're just happy and more comfortable with short hair and clothes that don't ask them to 'flaunt' their body shape? Is that porn's 'fault' for 'pushing' them that way or are they just rejecting that bullshit anyway and moving away from seeing themselves as only having value in terms of the male gaze?

That piece is such spurious shit. They talk like trans people are the only ones who've ever had or written about sexual fantasies beyond a quick monthly fumble under the sheets with Nigel. Nancy Friday nailed this stuff in the 70s but the GC movement seem insistent on presenting 'real' women as being pure of thought and incapable of having anything but the most vanilla, monogamous and conventional desires.

As for the claim that it's impossible to "separate the influence of pornography from the gender-identity movement, as both are aspects of the sex industry. The gender-identity industry sells ‘sex’ as a noun – supposedly allowing a male to ‘become’ a female (and vice versa) through surgeries and hormones. Whereas the pornography industry sells ‘sex’ as a verb." It's just fucking incoherent nonsense. Or that trans women are transitioning so they can become sex workers (as opposed to doing sex work so they can afford to transition). Evidence free smear after smear and people are lapping it up. And whilst I wouldn't expect anything less from Spiked, the fact there are still once thoughtful and nominally left leaning people nodding along to this dishonest and disingenuous level of analysis is really revealing about how unacknowledged or unconscious prejudices can fuck up people's ability to think critically about things.
 
Last edited:
I’m going to post this here. I’ll let you all work out why, and work out what the morally and optically good response to it is.

‘Dinlos’. Have a fucking word with yourselves.

 
Is it to point out the stark contrast between a genuinely heartbreaking crowdfunder which has only managed to raise £2000 so far compared to the gender criticals raising over half a million pounds for one employment tribunal in which the employee had not even been sacked and which failed dismally on most counts?
 
I’m going to post this here. I’ll let you all work out why, and work out what the morally and optically good response to it is.

‘Dinlos’. Have a fucking word with yourselves.

Very sad story.
Not sure of relavence to this thread, seems off topic? What point are you making?
can you post on one of the state of the care system threads please
 
I’m going to post this here. I’ll let you all work out why, and work out what the morally and optically good response to it is.

‘Dinlos’. Have a fucking word with yourselves.

Is the point you're making that this tragedy could have been averted if only more people were willing to follow your brave example of calling people groomers?
 
Good article here about media conveniently forgetting the difference between 'having an opinion' and 'spouting dangerous abuse' when in comes to a certain Mr Linehan.

 

Well done to the 'Children shouldn't have irreversible medical intervention for gender stuff' [which they can't get anyway] crowd - assuring children can't get the safe, reversible medical intervention that could prevent them needing greater medical intervention a few years later.
 

Well done to the 'Children shouldn't have irreversible medical intervention for gender stuff' [which they can't get anyway] crowd - assuring children can't get the safe, reversible medical intervention that could prevent them needing greater medical intervention a few years later.

I'm quite ambivalent on this, the lack of long term data, because the service didn't record it, is troubling.
 
I'm quite ambivalent on this, the lack of long term data, because the service didn't record it, is troubling.
oh look more transphobia from Sassferrato there is decades of international data on this, the Internaional clinicla guidelines recommedn prescribing , the misuse of GRADE in the statement from NHS England at the behest of Politicians is , if not criminal, certainly a matter of gross professional misconduct
 
I’m going to post this here. I’ll let you all work out why, and work out what the morally and optically good response to it is.

‘Dinlos’. Have a fucking word with yourselves.

Utterly appalling. If everyone in contact with the woman had deliberately set out to fail her, they could not have exceeded the level of negligence ad incompetence shown.
 
I’m going to post this here. I’ll let you all work out why, and work out what the morally and optically good response to it is.

‘Dinlos’. Have a fucking word with yourselves.

and the relevance of this to the thread is what exactly ?
 
I'd like to know how (if this is possible) it might compare to the risk level of some other meds - I do accept that having plentiful evidence of blockers safety and efficacy for treatment of precocious puberty is not necessarily the same as having evidence it is safe and generally a good idea for people to take it and then come off them and potentially have puberty much later or maybe have a late puberty affected by cross-sex hormones (or whatever is involved in going coming off blockers and going onto cross sex hormones, I don't know how it works). But unfortunately it's such an emotive topic that it's difficult to have an objective conversation about it generally.

It's worth noting that this report says there's a grand total of fewer than 100 kids on blockers - not clear if in England or whole UK, but either way it's hardly massive numbers and evidence that they are not 'being handed out like sweeties' as some people keep trying to portray it.
 
oh look more transphobia from Sassferrato there is decades of international data on this, the Internaional clinicla guidelines recommedn prescribing , the misuse of GRADE in the statement from NHS England at the behest of Politicians is , if not criminal, certainly a matter of gross professional misconduct
I'm a pharmacist by trade. I know that treatments can cause problems many many years after they have been on the market.

I have no view whatsoever with regard to gender identity, to describe me as transphobic is absolutely incorrect.
 
I'm a pharmacist by trade. I know that treatments can cause problems many many years after they have been on the market.

I have no view whatsoever with regard to gender identity, to describe me as transphobic is absolutely incorrect.
thanks for confirming you are a transphobe and you completely ifgnore the decades of clinical evidnece on the safe use of GnRH analgoues

are you sure you wish to making a statement asa professional when not following the guidance on identifying yourself as a registrant ?
 
Back
Top Bottom