Ok, Ok, Let's Talk Trans

[Kat]

I personally wouldn't want any pride merch from a store too ashamed to sell it anyway. You know they'll use it for good press later if public opinion swings towards supporting queer people again.

 

[MC74]

I personally wouldn't want any pride merch from a store too ashamed to sell it anyway. You know they'll use it for good press later if public opinion swings towards supporting queer people again.

I don't blame you one bit, they don't deserve the support. My attitude is you support the community or you don't. There is no middle ground.

 

[Kat]

It sucks we live in a disposable society where people willingly throw things away. It's not just bad for the environment, but there are people out there that could use some of these items. Give it to them!

That's easy to say but harder to do. I have tons of stuff I don't want, and I'd happily give it to somebody who wants it for free, but how would I find those people? List every item on Craigslist individually and deal with people texting me all day and hoping none of them turn out to be a weirdo I regret giving my address to?

But it is easy to dump stuff at Goodwill. It won't go to people who need it for free, but at least it won't go into the garbage.

 

[Raine]

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[MC74]

That's easy to say but harder to do. I have tons of stuff I don't want, and I'd happily give it to somebody who wants it for free, but how would I find those people? List every item on Craigslist individually and deal with people texting me all day and hoping none of them turn out to be a weirdo I regret giving my address to?

But it is easy to dump stuff at Goodwill. It won't go to people who need it for free, but at least it won't go into the garbage.

That is true. Thankfully, here where I live, if we want to get rid of any kitchenware or anything of the sort we don't want, the landlord helps take care of that. We have a little system in place where we try not to let stuff like that go to waste. It definitely does make it a lot easier when you have someone acting as the middleman instead of dealing with people yourself.

That's how the area was where I grew up was. Basically all of our furniture was second-hand; people would very rarely buy new stuff, and when they did, they put their old stuff next to the dumpster instead of into it so if anyone else in the neighborhood needed it, they could get it. My mother still uses a set of perfectly fine, wooden-handled utensils that are older than I am. That my grandmother got second-hand after her separation from my grandfather in like... the 50's, maybe?
Another point: They literally don't make things to last these days. Some of our decently-priced silverware has already died after ~10 years of use.

Our neighborhood would have basically not been able to exist with the way things are today. And things would be infinitely better if businesses were less wasteful - I still vividly remember the photos and news stories from nearer the start of the pandemic, with police ACAB guarding dumpsters so people couldn't get the food inside. Perfectly good food that had just been thrown out on their "best used by" date, or fruits/vegetables that had slightly turned and weren't display-worthy. I remember all the potato crops that got destroyed, I remember all the pigs and other farm animals that basically got inhumanely killed en masse and then their remains weren't even used for food.

My neighborhood was the same. We all knew each other, so if someone was throwing something out, it was much the same. You put it out next to the dumpster and sometimes, someone would come and take it off your hands.

However badly Trump and the 2016 election radicalized me, on top of where I had already been prior to that point? 2020~2021 was like dropping the power of the sun into my reserve tanks. My hate and loathing for our society is truly endless.

Yours and mine both, even though I'm trying to move on from hating people in general. Nowadays, it's more like "I'll mind my own business and focus on what makes me happy in life. Screw everyone else, the only people that matter are the ones close to me.".

 

[Raine]

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[MC74]

This is definitely a good system to have, for sure. The likes of Goodwill can be fine in theory, or other community donation drives, but honestly when it comes to stuff like that - a lot/most of it ends up in the trash anyway. Trying to run a business, even a non-profit, based around that is... a whole thing. Much better when people can just give and take what they do or don't need, no muss and no fuss. And, yeah, when something gets too worn out - recycle or throw that away.

It works a lot better when it's done that way, for sure.

That's the way it should be, for sure. Hate doesn't get you anywhere good in life, just weighs you down.

I learned to let go of it a long time ago. Dwelling on the past, how people treated me like shit, and hating everyone for it wasn't doing my mental health any good. Granted, I still have major trust issues and some others to work out, but I just keep to myself now. Tune everyone else out and only associate myself with those closest to me.

I don't have, like, active/hot raging inferno hate. It's just there in the background, like a little night light. If it needs to come out, then it will - but otherwise, that's just good fuel and doesn't get in the way of enjoying day-to-day life.

That's good to hear. Never let it stop you from being the amazing person that you are. It's a shitty world we live in, but hey, at least we have each other.

 

[Crystal]

So this one's not trans rights, but women's reproductive rights...Arizona being dumb

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizonas-top-court-revives-19th-century-abortion-ban-2024-04-09/

 

[MC74]

So this one's not trans rights, but women's reproductive rights...Arizona being dumb

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizonas-top-court-revives-19th-century-abortion-ban-2024-04-09/

Of course they would, Arizona is pretty much a red state.

 

[Crystal]

Of course they would, Arizona is pretty much a red state.

Very much so, our Supreme Court is 100% Republican

 

[MC74]

Very much so, our Supreme Court is 100% Republican

Which means you can expect more stupid laws to pass.

 

[Kat]

The good news is it sounds like abortion protections will be on the ballot in November, and those have passed in much redder states than Arizona.

 

[MC74]

Rishi Sunak says trans kids socially transitioning is 'not a neutral act'

Rishi Sunak has said he believes children changing gender is not a "neutral act" in a statement in anticipation of the Cass Review.

www.thepinknews.com

 

[Kat]

Article:

The prime minister said he believes that “no one should be forced to use preferred pronouns” or “accept contested beliefs as fact” in a statement on Tuesday (9 April).

I don't think he's thought this through. I bet he has a whole lot of "contested beliefs" that he expects other people to respect.

 

[MC74]

Article:

The prime minister said he believes that “no one should be forced to use preferred pronouns” or “accept contested beliefs as fact” in a statement on Tuesday (9 April).

I don't think he's thought this through. I bet he has a whole lot of "contested beliefs" that he expects other people to respect.

Yup, coming from the same man who cracked jokes about trans women, referring them to women with penises. From the same man who wants to change up the laws to define gender as one's biological sex and claims it's invasive to have trans women use the same facilities as cis women.

 

[Raine]

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[Kat]

Article:

It distinguished between gender-affirming surgeries, which it rejected, and “genital abnormalities” that are present at birth or that develop later. Those abnormalities can be “resolved” with the help of health care professionals, it said.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/vatican-gender-surrogacy-abortion-pope-3f84d8eb97f045b0cfb0ec1efa4e614e

So why the assumption that "genital abnormalities" are not intentional but everybody's genitals that conform to expectations are intentional? Obviously birth defects in general are possible, so why the assumption this particular thing cannot possibly be a defect?

Those are all rhetorical questions, in case that's not apparent. Whatever your opinion about deities, the process of making humans is known to go wrong more often than not. That's simply an undeniable fact.

Also note the "surrogacy" part of that headline, lest you were still wondering whether IVF is something Republicans/Conservatives/Fascists actually want to do away with or not.

Obviously that's terrible, but it is consistent with a lot of their other beliefs, and a rule having only negative practical repercussions hasn't stopped them from pursuing any other rules. So I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Raine]

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[MC74]

It's definitely a case of "I don't like thing," where don't like is the start and the end of the consideration. Since it's pure bigotry and refusal to think or reflect in the slightest, they never get past "Man in dress" and "genital mutilation" to even consider that, well, yeah, trans/Enby folk are who they say they are - and that the body has done a whoopsie doodle, even if formed "properly," and is defective.

I would be very curious to know whether they think souls are gender-coded, too. Because the question itself is a trap; affirmative and negative responses are both met with pro-trans responses.

Yup, when they think of trans women, they consider them as nothing more than men playing cosplay. Another huge misconception that gets thrown out there is that being trans = sexual fetish. They don't bother taking the time to do proper research on the matter. They don't understand what it means to be trans, and they don't understand what it's like to suffer from dysphoria.

That is why education & understanding is key. Unfortunately, they don't give 2 shits about the facts. They're too enamored with the smell of their own shit. It completely goes against they're ideals, so they're doing everything in their power to prohibit any form of education on the subject, all the while painting trans people in a negative light. The less people are educated, the more effective propaganda becomes.

 

[Crystal]

Might as well tack this on:

 

[MC74]

The Cass report, an independent review that dropped yesterday laid claims that the science behind gender medicine as it applies to younger people is on shaky foundation. The study states there is insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the risks and benefits of hormone interventions, and as such, urges more studies to be conducted.

Cass report urges 'caution' in prescribing puberty blockers to trans youth

The Cass report into trans youth healthcare has urged 'extreme caution' over prescribing puberty blockers, among other recommendations.

www.thepinknews.com

In response, the NHS has stated that they will be reviewing all treatments for transgender patients, not just youth. There's a possibility that serious reforms might be in order, and most likely ones that discourage people from transitioning if the current trend is anything to go by.

NHS to review all transgender treatment

Evidence for letting children change gender built on shaky foundations, says Cass report

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[MC74]

From the Telegraph article because it's hidden behind a paywall.

The NHS will review all trans treatment, as a landmark report says that the evidence for allowing children and young people to change gender is built on "shaky foundations".

Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, on Wednesday publishes her long-awaited review into the support and treatment offered to children who believe they are transgender, and cautions that extreme care should be taken before anyone under the age of 25 transitions.

It also calls for an end to the prescribing of any powerful hormone drugs to under 18s; warns children who change gender may regret it; finds that many have experienced trauma, neglect and abuse; and says there is no "good evidence" on the long-term outcomes of the treatments that have been given to children.

The review warns of pressures on families, with parents feeling forced to allow their children to transition so they are not labelled transphobic amid a "toxic" debate.

Dr Cass declares that "gender medicine for children and young people is built on shaky foundations".

She says: "The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress."

In response, the NHS is to review all transgender treatment it provides, including to adults, and treatment for any new patients aged 16 and 17 seeking to change gender at adult clinics will immediately be paused.


'Exercise extreme caution'

Rishi Sunak has welcomed the recommendations, highlighting the sharp rise in recent years in children, particularly adolescent girls, questioning their gender.

Backing Dr Cass's call for all cases to be treated with "great care and compassion", he said: "We simply do not know the long-term impacts of medical treatment or social transitioning on them, and we should therefore exercise extreme caution."

The 388-page report took four years to produce, amid mounting concern that children are being allowed to change gender in schools and by doctors without question.

Dr Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, cautions against hasty decisions while children's brains are developing, calling for "unhurried, holistic, therapeutic support" for those aged between 17 and 25.

She says doctors are "unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity".

Dr Cass adds that "life-changing" decisions must be properly considered in adulthood, noting that brain maturation continues into the mid-20s.

She cautions these people are still at a "vulnerable stage in their journey" and that each of the regional centres recommended in her interim report, which will provide mental health and other support to children who want to change gender, should care for people aged up to 25.

The consultant paediatrician says it is not possible to "know the 'sweet spot' when someone becomes settled in their sense of self" but that decisions should not be rushed before an individual becomes a mature adult.

The younger children were, the more likely they were to change their mind, the report finds.


'Exceptional' toxicity of debate

Dr Cass says the "toxicity of the debate is exceptional" and that she had been "criticised" by all sides as she published her report into NHS transgender services.

"There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop," she urges.

Dr Cass's report has been widely welcomed.

Mr Sunak said the Government had already acted swiftly on Dr Cass's previous call to stop routine use of puberty blockers for those under the age of 16.

"We will continue to ensure we take the right steps to protect young people. The wellbeing and health of children must come first," the Prime Minister said.


'Watershed moment'

Wes Streeting, Labour's health spokesman, said the report should provide a "watershed moment" for the NHS's gender identity services.

He said children's healthcare should always be led by evidence and children's welfare, "free from culture wars".

Helen Joyce, of the gender-critical group Sex Matters, said: "This is the end of paediatric gender medicine as we know it."

Kate Barker, chief executive of the advocacy group LGB Alliance, said: "We have known for years that for the overwhelming majority, gender distress resolves itself on its own, and that these young people grow up to be happy and well-adjusted lesbians, gay men or bisexuals.

She said it welcomed "that time to think is essential for young LGB people who are most at risk from the extreme ideas of gender identity ideology".


Implement a 'pause for under 18s'

In a letter to Dr Cass seen by The Telegraph, the NHS has said it will undertake a review, conducted by an external expert, of all its adult gender clinics and has in the meantime instructed them "to implement a pause on offering first appointments to young people below their 18th birthday".

The letter, written by John Stewart, NHS England national director of specialised commissioning, said it would also "review the use of gender-affirming hormones through a process of updated evidence review and public consultation, similar to the rigorous process that was followed to review the use of puberty suppressing hormones".

Children's clinics have been overwhelmed by referrals over the past decade, now receiving more than 1,600 referrals a year, compared with 50 in 2009.

They treat children experiencing gender incongruence or dysphoria, where they feel they are a different sex to how they were born.

Around 2,000 16-year-olds have been sent to adult services because they could not be seen by a children's clinic because of waiting times.

The Cass review says the adult clinics, of which there are 12 in England, refused to co-operate in its research.

A spokesman for Bayswater Support Group, which provides support for parents whose children have a transgender identity, said it remained "very concerned about the provision of adult services, where some 70 per cent of referrals are in the 17-25 age group and have the same vulnerabilities highlighted in today's report".

He added that it was "unacceptable" that 16 year olds had been "transferred to adult services in order to clear the [children's clinics] waiting list".

An NHS spokesman said: "NHS England is very grateful to Dr Cass and her team for their comprehensive work on this important review over the past four years.

"The NHS has made significant progress towards establishing a fundamentally different gender service for children and young people – in line with earlier advice by Dr Cass and following extensive public consultation and engagement – by stopping the routine use of puberty suppressing hormones and opening the first of up to eight new regional centres delivering a different model of care.

"We will set out a full implementation plan following careful consideration of this final report and its recommendations, and the NHS is also bringing forward its systemic review of adult gender services and has written to local NHS leaders to ask them to pause offering first appointments at adult gender clinics to young people below their 18th birthday."

 

[MC74]

And there it is. The Tories are looking to adopt the same policy as Oklahoma did and ban gender-affirming care for individuals up to the age of 25.

 

[Crystal]

Also applicable here:

 

[Raine]

Andrew Wakefield 2.0.

In an era wherein a global pandemic has killed tens of thousands of children, many in part because their parents stopped trusting in and believing experts in favor of hacks and charlatans looking to make a buck, the UK has decided to repeat the process.

Humanity is incapable of learning lessons.

A paediatrician de facto does not have the qualifications necessary to judge a goddamn thing about this. This is not a peer reviewed thing in any form. Hilary Cass is a known TERF. Just like Andrew Wakefield, a decade from now, this entire thing will be completely debunked. Everyone involved will be disgraced, discredited and disbarred (minus Cass herself, whom is already retired). But the damage will linger forever.





Bonus: The trans community has zero allies when it comes to organizations with power.

What is important, above all, is that trans and gender-diverse children get the quality healthcare that they need and deserve. The Cass Review can play a vital role in achieving this aim, if its recommendations are implemented properly.

No, it cannot. Whoever wrote this should literally fucking die.

This was a coordinated anti-trans thing from the beginning, obviously. But if it wasn't obvious, then The Guardian (amongst others, I'm sure) posting at least seven fucking articles in a single fucking day praising this shit should tip people off.



Anyway another day, another reminder that TERF Island can't be saved. Help the good ones get out, leave the rest to die in the fire of their own creation.

For whatever it's worth, all the love to my trans and non-binary/conforming siblings. Stay safe.

 

[MC74]

Andrew Wakefield 2.0.

In an era wherein a global pandemic has killed tens of thousands of children, many in part because their parents stopped trusting in and believing experts in favor of hacks and charlatans looking to make a buck, the UK has decided to repeat the process.

Humanity is incapable of learning lessons.

A paediatrician de facto does not have the qualifications necessary to judge a goddamn thing about this. This is not a peer reviewed thing in any form. Hilary Cass is a known TERF. Just like Andrew Wakefield, a decade from now, this entire thing will be completely debunked. Everyone involved will be disgraced, discredited and disbarred (minus Cass herself, whom is already retired). But the damage will linger forever.





Bonus: The trans community has zero allies when it comes to organizations with power.




No, it cannot. Whoever wrote this should literally fucking die.

This was a coordinated anti-trans thing from the beginning, obviously. But if it wasn't obvious, then The Guardian (amongst others, I'm sure) posting at least seven fucking articles in a single fucking day praising this shit should tip people off.



Anyway another day, another reminder that TERF Island can't be saved. Help the good ones get out, leave the rest to die in the fire of their own creation.

For whatever it's worth, all the love to my trans and non-binary/confirming siblings. Stay safe.

Well, it's pretty fucking obvious what the goal of this review is intended to do, and that's to undermine the research done by actual professionals who have a knowledge on the subject.

And now we're seeing it used as ammo by conservatives in order to effectively shut down trans healthcare. The fact that trans people are looking at waiting until the age of 25 is ridiculous. By that time, puberty has already long run its course. This also makes it easier for them to implement a system like Florida has in place, where they can just outright deny people from medically transitioning based on their "evidence".

 

[Raine]

system like Florida

(Not) Shockingly:






Right-Wing fuckers are going to do what they want regardless. Protesting does nothing, speaking calmly and rationally does nothing, begging and pleading does nothing. The only people that will help trans folk are on the ground level - other trans folk and their friends/family. Might just be time to forge a black market, with everything that tends to entail.

Same with women and fertility/abortion care.

 

[MC74]

(Not) Shockingly:






Right-Wing fuckers are going to do what they want regardless. Protesting does nothing, speaking calmly and rationally does nothing, begging and pleading does nothing. The only people that will help trans folk are on the ground level - other trans folk and their friends/family. Might just be time to forge a black market, with everything that tends to entail.

Same with women and fertility/abortion care.

Trans rights is on the hit list right now. If they're allowed to have their way with that like they did with abortion rights, there's no telling how far they'll roll back on other civil rights.

 

[Raine]

The goal is literally going back to White men owning their wives/women and Blacks/Hispanics being indentured servants if not, again, actual slaves. WASP and all that.

That's always been the plan. It will always be the plan. Conservatism is a purely reactionary, Fascist ideology. There is no such thing as a good conservative.

But it's not all bad news, not every country is run by fucking dipshits yet:

Cass Review out-of-line with medical consensus and lacks relevance in Australian context - Equality Australia

10 April, 2024 – England’s Cass review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world and lacks relevance within an Australian context, say medical practitioners, trans advocates, parents and human rights groups. The Cass review downplays the risk of denying treatment to young...

equalityaustralia.org.au

 

[MC74]

But it's not all bad news, not every country is run by fucking dipshits yet:

Cass Review out-of-line with medical consensus and lacks relevance in Australian context - Equality Australia

10 April, 2024 – England’s Cass review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world and lacks relevance within an Australian context, say medical practitioners, trans advocates, parents and human rights groups. The Cass review downplays the risk of denying treatment to young...

equalityaustralia.org.au

That is why they're disregarding research & facts. They cannot argue with them, so they try to dismiss it as a "lack of supporting evidence" instead.

 

[Kat]

How would you even do a blind study of trans care? It's obvious if you are getting hormones or transitioning socially.

Do any of you know of a good study or two to refute this report? Ones that show children rarely regret their treatments would be ideal. I think most people can remember being uncomfortable with themselves in some ways as a kid and outgrowing it. IMO it's not completely unreasonable to be skeptical of the idea that kids really are sure about their gender identity, because it's hard to imagine kids being completely sure about any part of their identity.

Bigots are unlikely to be convinced by such things, of course, but plenty of people are going to take this report at face value because they don't know better (which is the intention, no doubt). It'd be good to have some counter ammunition.

 

[Raine]

How would you even do a blind study of trans care? It's obvious if you are getting hormones or transitioning socially.

Conversely, both male and female puberties are exceedingly obvious in the ways the body develops. It's literally not possible to double-blind puberty blockers.

It's also definitely unethical to randomly and arbitrarily decide which trans kids do and don't receive a placebo in said hypothetical double blind study. It would do real, actual, lasting harm to the participants just for the sake of an already obvious answer.

Do any of you know of a good study or two to refute this report? Ones that show children rarely regret their treatments would be ideal.

Basically everything the Cass Review discredits. Which is why it's unilaterally discrediting them. Again, this is a singular woman - whom has no history or experience with gender treatment/studies (but does have a history of anti-trans bullshit) - saying she, and she alone (because the Cass Review was not peer-reviewed), knows better than literally hundreds of researchers and specialists.

So, any random links should suffice. Like:

Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care

This cohort study investigates whether gender-affirming care is associated with decreased depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youths.

jamanetwork.com

Or:

The Evidence for Trans Youth Gender-Affirming Medical Care

Research suggests gender-affirming medical care results in better mental health.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[MC74]

Conversely, both male and female puberties are exceedingly obvious in the ways the body develops. It's literally not possible to double-blind puberty blockers.

It's also definitely unethical to randomly and arbitrarily decide which trans kids do and don't receive a placebo in said hypothetical double blind study. It would do real, actual, lasting harm to the participants just for the sake of an already obvious answer.

It's been noted that a lot of medical studies don't feature double-blind controls because it can be unethical in a lot of cases. Like you just mentioned, this happens to be one of them.

Basically everything the Cass Review discredits. Which is why it's unilaterally discrediting them. Again, this is a singular woman - whom has no history or experience with gender treatment/studies (but does have a history of anti-trans bullshit) - saying she, and she alone (because the Cass Review was not peer-reviewed), knows better than literally hundreds of researchers and specialists.

Yup, and that's what it comes down to. She's not in the business of arguing with facts, actual research out there that debunks those claims. That's why she's doing this in a roundabout way to discredit those studies, to make it look like there's not enough credible evidence to support trans healthcare.

 

[Raine]

Oh, what's that? Actual research being performed? And by more than a single individual, you say? Madness.

Researchers invited 23 trans women and 12 trans men to undergo a series of performance tests in laboratory conditions, while also putting 21 cis women and 19 cis men through the same tests.

In certain cardiovascular tests, the trans women performed worse than the cis women, and were found to have less lower-body strength, according to the study published Wednesday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Among the results was a determination that the trans women athletes had decreased lung function compared to the cis women athletes.

In addition, the bone density of the trans women athletes was found to be equivalent to that of the cis women. Bone density is linked to muscle strength.

Article:

Pitsiladis believes the newly-published study can have an impact on inclusion, but is cautious over how others will interpret the results.

“It’s my expectation that it may become a little easier for some federations developing their policies to reject the default position adopted by some of the large federations to ban trans women athletes in the absence of scientific data to support such a position.

“But I suspect most will follow the positions of the large federations to ban. Also, it’s unlikely that those large federations will change their position as they are now too invested and they don’t really look at the science or evidence.

“Their wish is mainly to appease their membership and the decisions being taken are mainly justified by politics and dictates, rather than science.”

Source: https://www.outsports.com/2024/4/12/24091267/transgender-athletes-study-research-science-sports-governing-bodies/

 

[Raine]

Meanwhile, back to the Cass bullshit:

 

[MC74]

This all seems too much of a coincedence, doesn't it? NHS shuts down the Tavistock Centre, announces plans to open up regional clinics. Turns out they never had anything planned out properly, kept everyone out of the loop, and now this report comes out the same month along with sweeping reforms to trans healthcare. Ones that will ban gender-affirming care for people up to the ages of 25.

On the same month those service centres were scheduled to open. This was orchestrated from the get-go.

 

[Kat]

#Cass starts by asking "Does transition relieve mental distress in a clinical setting?" which is fundamentally pathologising (and condemned by international medical authorities when NHSE tried this in 2023.) The real Q is, "Do you want to transition?" If yes, that's your right!

Can you explain this, @Raine? Serious medical procedures and prescription drugs are generally not given because people simply want them, and they're certainly not covered by insurance in that case. Even if those two things weren't true, surely people generally transition because they're hoping it'll make them feel less distressed, right? So it'd be good to know if transitioning helps that or not? (Of course, that question has already been answered with a responding "yes", but that's irrelevant to whether it's a valid question to ask.) So what's the problem?

 

[Raine]

So it'd be good to know if transitioning helps that or not?

Correct, but that's not what Cass is asking. Abigail is pointing out that, should Cass want to improve the process, a different starting point is required. The question "Do you want to transition?" would be followed by "Why?," "how long have you felt this way?," a whole host of other questions and then - depending on age - a series of steps, including blockers and hormones, all of which also have questions and monitors that could, in theory, be improved upon. And certainly better access supplied.

But since the question is (ostensibly) "Does transitioning relieve mental distress," the entire framing is different. For starters, as you note, everyone already knows the answer is yes because we have decades of verifiable living proof. So by choosing to use that as a foundation, Cass inherently posits that if the answer is anything other than "Yes" the practices, medicines, treatments and therapies can be postponed/delayed/canceled/banned while other methods - like Conversion Therapy or classifying gender identity/gender dysphoria as a mental illness - are (re)introduced. Which, of course, is what she, NHS and the UK Government have gone on to effectively do.

And on the subject of classification, that's why Abigail has chosen to focus in on "pathologizing" - because Cass does not acknowledge or approach any of this as a defect, but as a disease. Pathology is the study of disease; Cass believes trans women are men with mental disorders, that we are the bog-standard "Men in Dresses" retort TERFs always fall back on. If Cass believed otherwise, if she believed the truth that trans/Enby folk are in the (soon-to-be) wrong bodies, then again the entire alleged review shifts from downplaying and discarding to analyzing and shoring up. There would be no hemming or hawing over alternative approaches or "doing additional damage," because there is no additional damage to be done - you treat the body so that it better reflects the person, you do not destroy the person so that they reflect the body.
(Or, more accurately, kill themselves as you repeatedly try and fail to do the impossible.)

Alternatively, to just crib from people smarter than me:

Article:

Diseases, in the scientific paradigm of modern medicine, are abnormalities in the function and/or structure of body organs and systems.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/756356/

 

[Kat]

I think I get what you mean. It's insidious how reasonable that report seems in a surface level. =\

So, switching gears here, I have a request for advice (which anybody can answer): I have an acquaintance who is non binary and uses they/them pronouns. As much as I support them in that, I occasionally find myself misgendering them. The root of the problem is they are not a "they" in my brain. Even though I always try to use the right pronoun even when I am just thinking about them mentally, it won't stick. And to me, this is what makes it so insulting for me to do: I'm not really accepting them as who they say they are. Anybody have any experience with that and have any tips on how to get my brain to internalize that non binary people exist and this person is not a woman?

And in the meantime, even though they never even react, I imagine it still doesn't feel good for them. I always immediately realize it when the wrong word leaves my mouth, so what should I do in the moment? Correct myself with as little fuss as possible? Don't acknowledge it and focus on doing better? Do I need to ask them directly (I really don't want to do this even though I'm sure they'd be completely cool about it)?

 

[Raine]

I think I get what you mean. It's insidious how reasonable that report seems in a surface level. =\

That's been the grifter/Right-Wing shtick for a good while now, unfortunately. It's real easy to see through a lot of the outlandish bullshit, but... it's also real easy to forget that the people pulling the strings are actually well-educated. So if you're not already familiar with (or actively living...) the subject matter on less obviously bad faith angles, whether that's gender identity or race relations (especially WRT policing) or many aspects of (socio)economics, then it's also real easy to get misled.

Consistently punching down on marginalized groups works so well because, well, there aren't as many of them to speak up. And certainly almost none in a position of power or influence that can effectively push back. Like you'll essentially never see a trans/Enby person on a discussion panel, on any national network, as a guest or commentator involved in the discussions the talking heads are having about gender identity and our place in things.

so what should I do in the moment?

Apologizing and correcting yourself/acknowledging their proper pronoun is probably more than fine. The English language is dumb; it takes a lot of practice to get into the habit of fully adding they/them into conversation. As long as they know you're not being intentionally rude/malicious about it, most people won't take offense. Especially those you knew before they came out, y'know?

Like the other ladies can speak on this too, but for me - because I did live "as" a man for a long time - memories are... a trying experience. And very much played a role in the Gender-Fluid period. Like it doesn't feel right, logically I guess, to think back to earlier times when I was presenting as a man but to then apply woman on top, if that makes sense? It gets real murky and real confusing real, real quick. One part "does this invalidate everything from before?," one part "should I be rectonning this?," all parts "well this is a strange quandary."

Which is a drawn-out way of saying that, yeah, they probably get it. But talking to them and letting them know you're trying to improve, and support them besides, is a nice gesture they'd likely appreciate.

 

[MC74]

That's been the grifter/Right-Wing shtick for a good while now, unfortunately. It's real easy to see through a lot of the outlandish bullshit, but... it's also real easy to forget that the people pulling the strings are actually well-educated. So if you're not already familiar with (or actively living...) the subject matter on less obviously bad faith angles, whether that's gender identity or race relations (especially WRT policing) or many aspects of (socio)economics, then it's also real easy to get misled.

Case in point, people in medical professions who have the educational background & experience in their respective fields, but have an agenda against trans people. These are the people who can pull the strings, exploit loopholes, and use roundabout methods to mislead the public and further push the narrative that being trans is a mental illness.

Consistently punching down on marginalized groups works so well because, well, there aren't as many of them to speak up. And certainly almost none in a position of power or influence that can effectively push back. Like you'll essentially never see a trans/Enby person on a discussion panel, on any national network, as a guest or commentator involved in the discussions the talking heads are having about gender identity and our place in things.

Exactly, and when you don't have many people in positions of power that have the backs of trans people, then it's harder for them to break the glass ceiling. With very little support for them, or from anyone at all, in addition to the stereotypical "norms" which have been placed upon society, it makes it extremely difficult for trans people to overcome these barriers.

Apologizing and correcting yourself/acknowledging their proper pronoun is probably more than fine. The English language is dumb; it takes a lot of practice to get into the habit of fully adding they/them into conversation. As long as they know you're not being intentionally rude/malicious about it, most people won't take offense. Especially those you knew before they came out, y'know?

Like the other ladies can speak on this too, but for me - because I did live "as" a man for a long time - memories are... a trying experience. And very much played a role in the Gender-Fluid period. Like it doesn't feel right, logically I guess, to think back to earlier times when I was presenting as a man but to then apply woman on top, if that makes sense? It gets real murky and real confusing real, real quick. One part "does this invalidate everything from before?," one part "should I be rectonning this?," all parts "well this is a strange quandary."

Which is a drawn-out way of saying that, yeah, they probably get it. But talking to them and letting them know you're trying to improve, and support them besides, is a nice gesture they'd likely appreciate.

In short, what matters most is you making the effort. Whatever you choose to do is up to you, but as long as you're making it known that you're putting in the effort to acknowledge them, that's all that matters.

 

[Crystal]

...Joanne won't shut up, part: The Holocaust.

JK Rowling adds Holocaust denial to growing body of offenses - LGBTQ Nation

Now she's trending on X with the hashtag “JK Rowling is a Holocaust”

www.lgbtqnation.com

 

[Raine]

...Joanne won't shut up, part: The Holocaust.

JK Rowling adds Holocaust denial to growing body of offenses - LGBTQ Nation

Now she's trending on X with the hashtag “JK Rowling is a Holocaust”

www.lgbtqnation.com

Yeah, I've definitely been calling her Queen TERF & Holocaust Denier Fucking Joanne for the last month because of that Tweet.

She's been (threatening to) SLAPP Suit-ing people for several years now, it's just who she is and what she does. She will eventually attempt it against someone with enough power and influence to call her bluff, if not reverse it on her entirely because she says a ton of heinous shit in the open. But until then pointing and laughing at her Streisand Effecting herself will have to do.

Bonus Fuck Joanne stuff from the week or so in the immediate aftermath of her thinking she "won" something with the Cass Review[Citation Needed]:




And this link used to go to a Tweet in which Fucking Joanne made an incredibly dumb, ill-advised and hateful comparison between the trans community and the sinking of the Titanic:



Which she deleted, because she's a fucking coward.

But anyway mainstream rags and websites and shit totally started picking up on stuff even before this hashtag. Clock is ticking, witch.

J.K. Rowling Is Now Picking on a Visually Impaired 51-Year-Old Trans Woman

Valentina Petrillo could not be less of a threat to anyone.

www.glamour.com

 

[MC74]

Yeah, I've definitely been calling her Queen TERF & Holocaust Denier Fucking Joanne for the last month because of that Tweet.

She's been (threatening to) SLAPP Suit-ing people for several years now, it's just who she is and what she does. She will eventually attempt it against someone with enough power and influence to call her bluff, if not reverse it on her entirely because she says a ton of heinous shit in the open. But until then pointing and laughing at her Streisand Effecting herself will have to do.

Bonus Fuck Joanne stuff from the week or so in the immediate aftermath of her thinking she "won" something with the Cass Review[Citation Needed]:




And this link used to go to a Tweet in which Fucking Joanne made an incredibly dumb, ill-advised and hateful comparison between the trans community and the sinking of the Titanic:



Which she deleted, because she's a fucking coward.

But anyway mainstream rags and websites and shit totally started picking up on stuff even before this hashtag. Clock is ticking, witch.

J.K. Rowling Is Now Picking on a Visually Impaired 51-Year-Old Trans Woman

Valentina Petrillo could not be less of a threat to anyone.

www.glamour.com

I personally cannot wait for the day when that bitch finally croaks. She's not getting any sympathy from me, I'll tell you that much.

 

[Webster]

She's been (threatening to) SLAPP Suit-ing people for several years now, it's just who she is and what she does. She will eventually attempt it against someone with enough power and influence to call her bluff, if not reverse it on her entirely because she says a ton of heinous shit in the open. But until then pointing and laughing at her Streisand Effecting herself will have to do.

@Crystal and I have talked about Ms. Rowling elsewhere and I'll repeat what I've said there: she is at that point in her career, where like the late author Michael Crichton along with sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card, where she effectively has what is known as Protection from Editors...

Protection from Editors - TV Tropes

(This writer can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage or enchanted by editorial criticism.) The Executive Meddling we're most familiar with is the sort that ruins stories, characters, and entire franchises. So why, some may ask, does the job even …

tvtropes.org

When the creator is first starting out, the editors have the advantage in the artist-executive relationship. The creator's priority is just getting their stuff out there where people can see it, and in order to make that happen most people will acquiesce on the smaller details. The creator has no real leverage — if he objects too strenuously to executives meddling with his "vision", the executives have the option of shrugging their shoulders and moving on to one of the hundreds of other desperate artists looking for a break.

However, if the creator manages to pull off a hit, the dynamic changes. He eventually becomes marketable on star power alone. Whatever he produces is guaranteed to sell, regardless of quality, thanks to his established fanbase.

Not all creators actually appreciate the help they've received from the editors. As far as they're concerned, these short-sighted editors have been holding them back from true greatness. They might not actively think this, but getting a fanbase and thus lots of positive feedback gives some people a swelled head.

Due to editors not being willing or able to fight back against a brand-name star, the resulting new material from an old creator can end up being lower-quality. Sometimes very much lower, as the author's bad habits, Mary Sues, and Author Appeals come to the fore (sometimes to the horrified shock of the creator's fanbase), where before, such excesses would be quickly and ruthlessly excised. The creators get away with it because it'll sell anyway, and we don't want to risk pissing him off and having him bolt for another company.

Protection From Editors can also foster in some minds a feeling that they are also, by extension, given Protection From Critics as well, which results in great displeasure whenever any criticism is raised — even if that criticism is constructive, well-meant, and particularly if it is valid. Expect snide attacks on anyone who dares criticise them to follow.

Crichton fell into this category after Jurassic Park when he wrote Rising Sun (a bigoted anti-Japanese economic polemic) and Disclosure (a snide attack on sexual harassment claims) and Rowling is in the same position.

 

[Crystal]

May she take a long walk off a short pier. Anyone who uses a platform of her stature to spread hatred and outright lies should be placed in the stocks.

 

[MC74]

May she take a long walk off a short pier. Anyone who uses a platform of her stature to spread hatred and outright lies should be placed in the stocks.

I'm not one to wish people pain & suffering, but these kind of people are the exception to the rule. Anyone who advocates for an ideology that bases itself on believing in one pure and superior race while looking down on others or even going as far as to purge those that aren't "aryan" deserves to forever burn in infamy.

 

[Raine]

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[MC74]

Anyways, I think we should be focusing less on Joanne and more on what's around the corner in 4 days: Playoff hockey

 

[Webster]

Anyways, I think we should be focusing less on Joanne and more on what's around the corner in 4 days: Playoff hockey