Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

This is a real condition. Or rather, several real conditions that lead sufferers in the same direction. You can't just say, it's all in your mind, just snap out of it, there's nothing you can do. Well, of course it's all in the mind, but you can't just tell someone to snap out of a mental condition.

The craziness is the whole idea that if the mind has a problem which takes the form of wanting the body to be other than it is, you can address this by medically and surgically changing the body to align with the mind's fantasy. I don't discount that there are cases where this seems to have worked, but the number of cases where either the patient bitterly regrets having mutilated a previously healthy body, or comes to realise that the fantasy is unachievable and they're chasing rainbows, is disturbing.

The real killer here is this outlawing of so-called "conversion therapy". (Actually, youth transition is itself a form of gay conversion therapy. So many of these disturbed young people are gay, and we see parents keen to transition their effeminate sons because they'd rather have a straight daughter than a gay son, and young butch lesbians trying to become "trans boys" to address their internalised homophobia.) Given the lifelong consequences of medical/surgical transition and what it does to previously healthy bodies, and the incidence of poor outcomes, surely the best thing to do is to try to reconcile the mind to the body it has, with psychological treatment. Particularly for these children, when you realise you're setting them on a path that will leave them incapable of sexual arousal or orgasm as adults.

But no. We see the mantra that "gender identity" is fixed and immutable (even as people are encouraged to explore and question it, and some people claim to be feminine one day and masculine the next), and it's some sort of cardinal sin to try to treat a patient with psychotherapy to avoid mutilating their body. So the parents encourage this delusion in their ten-year-old sons, and try to get them "toys" to stimulate orgasm at the same time as they inject them with the castrating hormones that will almost certainly mean that this is unachievable.

This is wicked, and society is going to look back on it with horror that any supposedly civilised society could do this to its children.

[Rolfe]

Something else seems to have happened to Mermaids. Until the other day their web site was sporting the logo of an organisation called the "Safeguarding Alliance". Inquiring minds on Twitter discovered that this is not an accrediting organisation. Rather, it is an organisation that will "keep you up to date with safeguarding information" and also provides safeguarding training material. It actually seems to be something of a scam, because the logo looks like an accreditation, but there is no inspection involved - you pays your money and you puts it on your web site. You could have an entire staff composed of convicted kiddie-fiddlers for all they would know.

Anyway, the logo has gone. Speculation abounds, but my suspicion is that the Safeguarding Alliance realised it was toxic to have their logo on a charity being investigated for safeguarding failures, and severed their connection.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Anyone watch this one yet?

https://twitter.com/TheProblem/statu...77239855972354



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I only watched a few snippits. Doesn't sound very promising.

Cantor has added a post discussing this to his blog.

'Stewart repeatedly referred to clinical guidelines of four American associations as research-based and peer-reviewed. That claim is incorrect. Of these groups, only two have actually released clinical guidelines (the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, see below). The other two (American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association) have released various statements on the topic, but not guidelines or standards, and none of any of these groups undertook peer review with any of these documents.

When asked, Rutledge was unable to name which medical bodies reviewed the existing research and found it wanting. Those bodies are: the National Health Service of the U.K. and the National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden. Both governments engaged in systematic and comprehensive reviews of all the research available and concluded that the evidence does not support medicalized treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.'

We already discussed the AAP policy statement supporting gender affirmation in minors that contains citations which do not support the claims made. Apparently, this wasn't peer reviewed. They never responded to the fact-checking critique which was peer-reviewed.

Cantor also discusses the likelihood that BPD or emotionally unstable personality disorder, which is associated with identity disturbance and suicidality, is being mistaken for gender dysphoria in many cases of adolescents with sudden onset.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is a real condition. Or rather, several real conditions that lead sufferers in the same direction. You can't just say, it's all in your mind, just snap out of it, there's nothing you can do. Well, of course it's all in the mind, but you can't just tell someone to snap out of a mental condition.

The craziness is the whole idea that if the mind has a problem which takes the form of wanting the body to be other than it is, you can address this by medically and surgically changing the body to align with the mind's fantasy. I don't discount that there are cases where this seems to have worked, but the number of cases where either the patient bitterly regrets having mutilated a previously healthy body, or comes to realise that the fantasy is unachievable and they're chasing rainbows, is disturbing.

The real killer here is this outlawing of so-called "conversion therapy". (Actually, youth transition is itself a form of gay conversion therapy. So many of these disturbed young people are gay, and we see parents keen to transition their effeminate sons because they'd rather have a straight daughter than a gay son, and young butch lesbians trying to become "trans boys" to address their internalised homophobia.) Given the lifelong consequences of medical/surgical transition and what it does to previously healthy bodies, and the incidence of poor outcomes, surely the best thing to do is to try to reconcile the mind to the body it has, with psychological treatment. Particularly for these children, when you realise you're setting them on a path that will leave them incapable of sexual arousal or orgasm as adults.

But no. We see the mantra that "gender identity" is fixed and immutable (even as people are encouraged to explore and question it, and some people claim to be feminine one day and masculine the next), and it's some sort of cardinal sin to try to treat a patient with psychotherapy to avoid mutilating their body. So the parents encourage this delusion in their ten-year-old sons, and try to get them "toys" to stimulate orgasm at the same time as they inject them with the castrating hormones that will almost certainly mean that this is unachievable.

This is wicked, and society is going to look back on it with horror that any supposedly civilised society could do this to its children.

There is nothing like first hand evidence to convince.
I am not sure I would properly believe the syndrome otherwise, but I know from a 53 year life, start to finish, how it played. We had no idea till he was 45.

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Anyone watch this one yet?

https://twitter.com/TheProblem/statu...77239855972354

I only watched a few snippits. Doesn't sound very promising.
<snip>

Not "promising" at all. But what seems as clear as mud is that Stewart is talking about man and woman as genders - as ranges of personalities and behaviour types; a multitude of them, a spectrum - whereas those on the right, one assumes, that he was throwing stones at - like Walsh and Company - see them as sexes, as "adult human females" and "adult human males". And some on the right further muddy the waters by equating sex and gender.

What a *********** - everyone talking, no one actually listening to what the other side is actually saying. Everyone riding madly off in all directions. And the kids suffer for it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

So many of these disturbed young people are gay, and we see parents keen to transition their effeminate sons because they'd rather have a straight daughter than a gay son

Are you seriously suggesting that there are parents (besides one or two weirdos) who would hate to have a gay child but would be perfectly happy to have a trans child?

[Rolfe]

I don't need to suggest it. Examples abound. Starting with Susie Green.

[Puppycow]

Came across this in the Guardian:

‘I thought my boyfriend of 10 years was going to propose – then he told me he was trans’

It's the story of a woman who fancied herself "progressive" and an "ally" trying to come to terms with her boyfriend coming out as trans 10 years into a relationship that she thought and hoped was headed for marriage and children. I wonder if her ex-partner will live to regret this decision as a horrible mistake? She has moved on and gotten over it.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't need to suggest it. Examples abound. Starting with Susie Green.

Have you any evidence to support that or are you mindreading?

Smells to me like an appeal to motive.

[Rolfe]

Lots of people don't regret it. The couple of transwomen I've known for many years don't regret it, or if they do they're keeping it to themselves. On the other hand, the "many years" part is important. They transitioned a long time ago when there was a lot of psychological gatekeeping and support aimed at ensuring only those men who would really benefit from transition did it, making sure their expectations were realistic, and keeping them on an even psychological keel during and after the process.

The problem is the present rush to "affirm, affirm". The mantra that if someone even thinks they might be trans then they are trans, and any suggestion that they might stop and think about it for a bit is wicked conversion therapy.

I see even in that article the "trans widow" declares that a ban on "trans conversion therapy" is essential. In some ways its an object lesson in what happens when someone who has unthinkingly gone along with the whole rainbow project suddenly comes up against the reality of an AGP partner.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Have you any evidence to support that or are you mindreading?

Smells to me like an appeal to motive.

Interviews with Mrs Green, multiple social media posts by other mothers of effeminate boys, particularly in the ultra-conservative states of the USA. At first they thought their little boy was going to grow up gay and what a relief it was to find out they were trans. (It's often the mothers talking, but what they describe is their husbands' horror at the prospect of having a gay son, and then relief all round when it was decided - by the adults - that the child was trans.) Transing the gay away happens.

And no, I don't bookmark everything I read. If I happen to come across one I'll post it, but you don't have to believe me. I think your knee-jerk disbelief and impugning of my motives says more about you than about me though.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Interviews with Mrs Green, multiple social media posts by other mothers of effeminate boys, particularly in the ultra-conservative states of the USA. At first they thought their little boy was going to grow up gay and what a relief it was to find out they were trans. (It's often the mothers talking, but what they describe is their husbands' horror at the prospect of having a gay son, and then relief all round when it was decided - by the adults - that the child was trans.) Transing the gay away happens.

And no, I don't bookmark everything I read. If I happen to come across one I'll post it, but you don't have to believe me. I think your knee-jerk disbelief and impugning of my motives says more about you than about me though.

The other thing you do, unlike most trans rights supporters, is that you actually post examples of what you are talking about. Constantly. All you really get from your opponents is “you are wrong” with no supporting links or very weak appeals to authority (like unnamed “progressive medical authorities”).

[Rolfe]

Something I've been noticing for a while has to some extent blown up today with Maya Forsater's suspension from Twitter.

She was suspended because she posted a thread about child safeguarding concerns relating to the sexualisation of children by the trans project. She included that image of Darren Mew in the altogether as an example of the sort of media profile that should preclude anyone being employed by a children's charity. The image is all over twitter, posted by multiple people. She was subjected to a mass reporting campaign by trans activists.

This is an example of a wider issue, which she covers in that blog post. That zeal to avoid criticising anything done in the name of LGBTQI+++++ inclusion trumps child safeguarding and indeed common decency in far too many aspects of public policy.

Quote:

But the corruption of safeguarding, by queer theory, and fear-driven overindulgence of anything justified as LGBTQIA+ inclusion, has been going on in plain sight across large parts of the voluntary sector, the arts, the public sector, universities and beyond, for years. It requires more than a few face-saving exits, by expendable fall-guys like Bergdorf, Makings, Breslow and Mew.

It is time the Children’s Commissioner stepped in to investigate how policies and cultures driven by concern for “LGBTQIA+ inclusion” have undermined safeguarding. And it is time the leadership of these organisations is held accountable.

The examples in her blog post are quite shocking, in particular the case of the man who filmed himself in full rubber fetish gear masturbating in the toilets at his place of work, and posted this on the internet. He worked for the NSPCC. That is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Many people have said that if they were found to have done such a thing by their employer they would be dismissed on the grounds of grossly inappropriate conduct bringing the company into disrepute. However the NSPCC initially turned on those complaining about this, calling them "pearl-clutchers" and accusing them of homophobia against a gay man. The NSPCC encouraged people to mass-report the accounts calling out this behaviour and get them banned.

We see this time and time again. Those who criticise grossly inappropriate and over-sexual public behaviour, particularly on the part of those coming into contact with children or even encouraging such behaviour in children (child drag queens and so on) are being portrayed as prurient curtain-twitchers, themselves obsessed with children's sexuality, whereas the people promoting the kiddie drag acts see them as sweet, innocent, pure children's fun.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest when Stonewall and Mermaids do this. This is par for the course. But the NSPCC???!!!

What actually sparked off the train of thought was a video clip posted of a man being threatened with arrest by a very aggressive policeman. The scene was some sort of pro-Stonewall demonstration, and the man had remarked, presumably publicly if the cop heard him, that supporting LGB was all absolutely fine, but that the other letters were "insidious". (I'm pretty sure it was "insidious" and not "invidious".) He was expressing the opinion that other, more unsavoury interest groups who were not primarily concerned with same-sex attraction had attached themselves to the LGB movement and that this was not healthy.

The policeman threatened him with arrest. When he tried to ask for the reason, he was told that he had said something insulting about "LGBT+" people and that was a hate crime. I think. I'm trying to make more sense of this than appeared on the video, perhaps. What struck me was the fury on the part of the policeman, his absolute refusal to listen to the man trying to explain what he had in fact said, and his complete conviction that saying anything negative about the Blessed Rainbow People was a hate crime.

Someone else was approached by the police for "being untoward" about a particular group of people. In that case paedophiles.

It's the institutional capture that baffles me - the police, the NSPCC, the courts (censuring rape victims for referring to their rapist as "he"), you name it. But more than that, it's the messianic zeal demonstrated by individual people whom one would have expected to espouse the more normal view that, for example, grooming children into performing sexualised floor-shows and posting footage of you masturbating in fetish gear at work in a children's charity, are not actually on.

This spills over to the ridiculous case of the teacher with the enormous fake boobs, which is a thread where one cannot discuss the underlying cause of the incident, which is that it is another example of this phenomenon. People - in this case senior school heads and administrators - one would expect to understand that people who display imappropriate sexual images of themselved in public are not fit and proper people to be working with children, are condoning and excusing this, and criticising the critics.

I don't really know how we got here.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by lionking

The other thing you do, unlike most trans rights supporters, is that you actually post examples of what you are talking about. Constantly. All you really get from your opponents is “you are wrong” with no supporting links or very weak appeals to authority (like unnamed “progressive medical authorities”).

Well, I don't bookmark all this stuff. Sometimes it's not hard to find it again, but tweets of screen captures from forums discussing the transing of children aren't easy to find once you've navigated away from the page. (And of course, find one, and those of a three wise monkeys mindset will simply say, well that's an isolated incident, prove it happened more than once. Then more than twice. And so on.) These are almost invariably mothers talking among themselves, and pretty much encouraging each other into Munchhausen's by proxy. Every so often, and it's not that uncommon, a mother will say, about her "transgirl", that at first they thought their effeminate small boy was going to be gay, and indicate their relief that he was going to be trans. I think part of it is the massive support network for "trans kids" and the cosseting they get at school, in contrast to the lack of support and bullying of effeminate boys.

Susie Green's case is actually on a video somewhere. She's English, and the mindset is more commonly seen in the Southern Baptist parts of the USA, but you can find it all over. She describes Jack's early childhood where he liked girly toys and didn't want to play with macho stuff. Her husband punished his little boy for this and took the girly toys away, insisting he play with proper boys' toys. These are girls' toys, they're not for boys!

Well, Jack was pretty small at this point. He started saying he was a girl. Which sounds very much like a coping strategy to be allowed to play with the toys he wanted to play with. His father in particular was mighty relieved by this - he didn't have a gay son after all. Susie dressed Jack in girls' clothes and started calling him Jackie. When he was 12 she took him to the USA to be put on puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones were started when he was 14. On his 16th birthday she took him to Thailand to be castrated and have an artificial "vagina" constructed. He competed in girls' beauty pageants and did pretty well - unsurprisingly, because no testosterone = no acne, and an androgynous, slim-hipped body is favoured in these competitions.

She's also on video laughing about the surgical complications caused by the fact that Jack's external genitalia never matured, so the surgeon didn't have enough tissue to construct the required facsimile of feminine parts. She is now head (or something) of Mermaids.

"Jackie" is now living in New Zealand or Australia I believe, possibly trying to get as far away from Susie as possible.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Robin

Are you seriously suggesting that there are parents (besides one or two weirdos) who would hate to have a gay child but would be perfectly happy to have a trans child?

Apart from those in Iran, you mean?

This has been reported many times, including by whistleblowers in Tavistock. Here is a video clip of an interview with Dr Zucker, who has decades of experience in childhood gender dysphoria, confirming it (should start at the correct place, 18.52).

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Apart from those in Iran, you mean?

This has been reported many times, including by whistleblowers in Tavistock. Here is a video clip of an interview with Dr Zucker, who has decades of experience in childhood gender dysphoria, confirming it (should start at the correct place, 18.52).

Oh, well spotted, I hadn't seen that video.

I'd also forgotten that one of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock (perhaps more than one) said that they were seeing large numbers of pre-gay and young gay people, "soon there won't be any gay kids left". As Dr Zucker said, sometimes it's the young person themselves who has internalised homophobia (as I also mentioned in my original post), sometimes it's the parents - usually parents of boys I think, because tomboy girls are more readily accepted, but there are also a lot of parents of girls transing them, I suspect attracted by the attention and validation given to families with a trans child as opposed to a possibly gay child.

Also Iran. You're a gay man? Death penalty. Or, take sex reassigment surgery and we'll let you live.

ETA: I think the thing that really creeped me out in the screen-shots of the women talking about buying fake penises for their primary-school-age girls to put in their knickers, was that they are supplied in either intact or circumcised. The idea of a mother thinking, well if she was a boy would I have had her circumcised as a baby, just seems so bizarre.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Interviews with Mrs Green, multiple social media posts by other mothers of effeminate boys, particularly in the ultra-conservative states of the USA. At first they thought their little boy was going to grow up gay and what a relief it was to find out they were trans. (It's often the mothers talking, but what they describe is their husbands' horror at the prospect of having a gay son, and then relief all round when it was decided - by the adults - that the child was trans.) Transing the gay away happens.

And no, I don't bookmark everything I read. If I happen to come across one I'll post it, but you don't have to believe me. I think your knee-jerk disbelief and impugning of my motives says more about you than about me though.

My intention isn't to impugn your motives but I am skeptical of the theory that parents are encouraging their children to identify as transgender because they cannot accept that their child is homosexual. Asking for evidence is well within the acceptable norms on this forum. No hurry. I completely understand that you may not be able to produce it instantly.

There is, no doubt, some social pressure driving this trend. I think it comes from the media. The article I linked mentioned a transgender woman being put on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine. It is being glamourized and made very fashionable. Everyone is eager to affirm it and even celebrate it. But from a comfortable distance. When it's your own child or your own partner, suddenly it becomes deeply concerning.

[Rolfe]

If you don't think the video Eleadith linked to is evidence, or the concerns of the Tavistock whistleblower, I think we're done here.

I think many people are deeply concerned when it's their own child or their own partner. Trans widows support forums exist for a reason. We can find as many mothers of teenagers agonising about how to get their children away from the clutches of the trans cult before their bodies have been changed irreversibly as we can find mothers enthusing over their "trans kids" and planning their hormones and surgery.

The existence of one group doesn't preclude the existence of the other. Some mothers are petrified, and desperate to persuade their children to desist. Some mothers see having a trans child as the next woke accessory and a passport to belonging to a group and being included, and being both hailed as brave and supported against the imagined hostile world.

[Rolfe]

Well, well. MP stands up in the HoC and calls for a police inquiry into Mermaids. I'm not so sure that the PM (spits, makes sign against evil eye) actually agreed in so many words, but she didn't knock her back either.

https://twitter.com/JohnJamesTV/stat...63518250090496

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

There is, no doubt, some social pressure driving this trend. I think it comes from the media. The article I linked mentioned a transgender woman being put on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine. It is being glamourized and made very fashionable. Everyone is eager to affirm it and even celebrate it. But from a comfortable distance. When it's your own child or your own partner, suddenly it becomes deeply concerning.

For a lot of people that may well be true. But not for everyone. There's a pathological impulse that some women have (and it's an overwhelmingly female pathology) to sacrifice their children to get attention. In the extremes, it turns into Munchausen syndrome by proxy. But you can satisfy that impulse legally, and do it all out in the open, by transitioning your child.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Something I've been noticing for a while has to some extent blown up today with Maya Forsater's suspension from Twitter.

She was suspended because she posted a thread about child safeguarding concerns relating to the sexualisation of children by the trans project. She included that image of Darren Mew in the altogether as an example of the sort of media profile that should preclude anyone being employed by a children's charity. The image is all over twitter, posted by multiple people. She was subjected to a mass reporting campaign by trans activists.

Well, this raises a question.

Man in job with children's charity, job which seems to involve interacting with children online.
Man does a photoshoot for an "art porn" magazine.
Resulting "art porn" is published, with the sitter's name.
Magazine tweets out some of the artwork, not age-limited, and again with the sitter's name.

A year or so later this is noticed and a number of people retweet the image with critical remarks.
These accounts are reported for "revenge porn".

That is apparently what Maya has been suspended for. The decision that to tweet a publicly available pornographic image of someone, which the model posed for voluntarily and authorised to be published including his name, is "revenge porn" if it's retweeted with a critical comment.

[Rolfe]

Toddler Rapist Now Award-Winning Trans Rights Activist

Quote:

A convicted child sex offender is performing community outreach for an organization that advises incarcerated men on how to declare a transgender status and legally change their identification.

Xena Grandichelli, born Jeffrey Willsea, is a biological male who now identifies as a woman. In 1994, Grandichelli pleaded guilty to 11 counts of sexual abuse involving a 3 year-old girl and was designated a sexually violent offender. His sex offender registration categorizes him as a risk level 3, which denotes the highest recidivist risk and a threat to public safety. New York State law restricts level 3 sex offenders from being within 1,000 feet of a school.

Yet since his release from prison, Grandichelli has become a highly-regarded trans activist and has spoken at top-tier universities. In 2017, he was a panelist representing “women’s experiences of incarceration” at Columbia University. In 2016, Grandichelli spoke at NYU on the topic of incarceration and trauma. In the same year, he led a workshop on trans issues for the National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People of Color Health Conference.

Notably, he has also partnered with the Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) and was designated as a Movement Building Team member. In a letter posted to the SRLP website, Grandichelli describes how team members from the organization actively worked to recruit him while he was still incarcerated for sexually abusing a child.

This is happening way too often. And although I don't know how it is in the jurisdiction in question, I do know that here, once a man has declared trans status and changed his name, it is to all intents and purposes a new identity with the previous one deleted. It won't show up on DBS checks unless the man himself volunteers to the prospective employer that he was previously known by a different name. It won't show up if police are searching suspect's criminal records. And we know that Ian Huntley managed to get a job as a school caretaker by changing his name so his past record wouldn't show up. This has been tightened up now for general use, but transwomen are exempt from any disclosure of their previous identities.

There are way too many of these men showing up with criminal records involving sexual assault and even assault on children. That Katie what's-his-name is in court again on child sex charges, I saw today.

These men are not women, but they're being treated as an especially rare and valuable sort of woman who should be given positions on advisory bodies.

[theprestige]

Not the worst part of that story, but this is one of my pet peeves: "... he was a panelist representing “women’s experiences of incarceration”"

I have come to the firm conclusion that transwomen have absolutely no standing to claim women's experiences.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is happening way too often.

Who could possibly have predicted this.

I mean, lots of people did, including me. Give predators an incentive to claim trans identity, and of course they'll come out of the woodworks to do so. But still, who could have predicted it.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not the worst part of that story, but this is one of my pet peeves: "... he was a panelist representing “women’s experiences of incarceration”"

I have come to the firm conclusion that transwomen have absolutely no standing to claim women's experiences.

We are frequently seeing men LARPing women being elevated to positions to talk about or demonstrate "women's experiences". Monroe Bergdorf (who is a man) was once invited on to something as a "woman film-maker". He's not only not a woman, he doesn't make films. He was involved with the NSPCC at one time, and one of the concerns about the man in the rubber fetish gear was that he was the person who had invited Bergdorf to become an ambassador for the charity. Bergdorf had put out tweets encouraging "questioning" youngsters to contact him privately if their parents didn't understand them. Something about him being their mother and them deserving to be loved. This is a huge red flag for child safeguarding, but the charity doubled down on it several times before severing their links with Bergdorf, amid squeals of how these terrible terfs had targeted the pure and noble trans person.

There is a type of man who is attracted to these children's charities and so on, for less than altruistic reasons, and once they get into a position of influence they steer the charity to "woke" signalling like taking on dubious associates and staff with seriously alarming social media profiles, then howling about "pearl-clutching" if anyone draws attentin to this. It's not a safeguarding concern to draw attention to a man in rubber fetish gear filming himself masturbating in the toilets at a children's charity, it's homophobia.

There are various examples of men being awarded "woman of the year" and similar titles by magazines and things like that, then when women say, but hang on, what about honouring an actual woman with this award, it's transphobic.

There is a shed-load of evidence that adult-transitioning males and fetishism, pornography, exhibitionism and sex offences are linked far far more often than one might expect by chance, and we're not allowed to talk about it.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

My intention isn't to impugn your motives but I am skeptical of the theory that parents are encouraging their children to identify as transgender because they cannot accept that their child is homosexual. Asking for evidence is well within the acceptable norms on this forum. No hurry. I completely understand that you may not be able to produce it instantly.

There is, no doubt, some social pressure driving this trend. I think it comes from the media. The article I linked mentioned a transgender woman being put on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine. It is being glamourized and made very fashionable. Everyone is eager to affirm it and even celebrate it. But from a comfortable distance. When it's your own child or your own partner, suddenly it becomes deeply concerning.

Rolfe and others have posted ample evidence.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by lionking

Rolfe and others have posted ample evidence.

It's become a bit of a catchphrase: "that thing that never happens has happened again".

[Rolfe]

Actually that catchphrase generally refers to a man claiming to be a woman being charged with or convicted of some sort of sexual offence. Which seems to happen on a daily basis.

Puppycow was refusing to believe that mothers encourage their little boys to transition because they (or more accurately their husbands) would rather have a straight trans daughter than a gay son. (Actually they'll most probably end up with an asexual trans daughter.)

We pointed out several links, and that this seems to be a form of Munchhausen by proxy. Susie Green did so well out of it she was appointed to a senior (and I imagine well paid) job running Mermaids.

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

<snip>

It's the institutional capture that baffles me - the police, the NSPCC, the courts (censuring rape victims for referring to their rapist as "he"), you name it. But more than that, it's the messianic zeal demonstrated by individual people whom one would have expected to espouse the more normal view that, for example, grooming children into performing sexualised floor-shows and posting footage of you masturbating in fetish gear at work in a children's charity, are not actually on.

<snip>

I don't really know how we got here.

Amen to that; very good question, if not the one of the hour.

ICYMI, Joanna Williams has been beavering-away at the issue for literally years - several articles in Spiked, this more recent one in particular:

Quote:

How trans ideology took over
A tiny movement of trans activists has influenced nearly all of our institutions.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/0...ogy-took-over/

And see her "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" from about the same time:

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/f...pi-110-WEB.pdf

My elaboration on the theme, with particular attention to the Statistics Departments of Britain, New Zealand, and Canada which links to & quotes Williams' posts:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...ents-corrupted

Of particular note is this assertion by New Zealand's:

Quote:

Lesbian: A woman who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex or gender.

This assertion of theirs being hardly less odious:

Quote:

Sex reassignment occurs where a person has undergone the necessary treatment to permanently change their sex. If a person's sex is indeterminate at birth, sex assignment occurs when they undergo treatment to become male or female.

[my emphasis]

The rot goes rather deep. And hard not to conclude that much of feminism bears some responsibility for it because many so-called feminists are peddling what is little short of outright Lysenkoism. Apropos of which, a fairly decent review of Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century here by Helen Dale, as well as my summary of the high points of it:

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/

Quote:

"counterblast to the braindead feminism"; "sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality"; "what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously"; and "Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism".

https://helendale.substack.com/p/aro...omment/9517083

[porch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not the worst part of that story, but this is one of my pet peeves: "... he was a panelist representing “women’s experiences of incarceration”"

I have come to the firm conclusion that transwomen have absolutely no standing to claim women's experiences.

I've read recently about people that want their healthy limbs amputated. It is frequent among this population to want to be more than just any amputee. For some, part of the motivation, or fantasy, is that they will go out in public and perform tasks that people will not expect them to be capable of, due to their disability.

Another aside, besides this aside: I worked in a hospital, I took a two hour course on Mental Health First Aid. I understand that this isn't the same as any kind of long term treatment. But it makes me wonder what the current ethical standards are for psychologists and psychiatrists when it comes to delusion. What we were taught in the seminar was that if we encountered a clearly delusional person that we were not to tell them that their perceptions were wrong, eg, their claiming to be the Christ, with satellites overlooking the hospital grounds. But we were also supposed to not reinforce what they were saying. Something like, "That may be what you perceive, but that is different from my perception of events."

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by porch

I've read recently about people that want their healthy limbs amputated. It is frequent among this population to want to be more than just any amputee. For some, part of the motivation, or fantasy, is that they will go out in public and perform tasks that people will not expect them to be capable of, due to their disability.

Another aside, besides this aside: I worked in a hospital, I took a two hour course on Mental Health First Aid. I understand that this isn't the same as any kind of long term treatment. But it makes me wonder what the current ethical standards are for psychologists and psychiatrists when it comes to delusion. What we were taught in the seminar was that if we encountered a clearly delusional person that we were not to tell them that their perceptions were wrong, eg, their claiming to be the Christ, with satellites overlooking the hospital grounds. But we were also supposed to not reinforce what they were saying. Something like, "That may be what you perceive, but that is different from my perception of events."

Good job this is all irrelevant to the topic of this thread - since mainstream medicine now recognises that transgender identity is neither a delusion nor any other form of mental health disorder.

(While, on the other hand, people who want healthy limbs amputated are indeed considered by mainstream medicine to be suffering from a mental health disorder. Which is why such individuals are offered psychiatric treatment rather than orthopaedic surgery.)

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For a lot of people that may well be true. But not for everyone. There's a pathological impulse that some women have (and it's an overwhelmingly female pathology) to sacrifice their children to get attention. In the extremes, it turns into Munchausen syndrome by proxy. But you can satisfy that impulse legally, and do it all out in the open, by transitioning your child.

This is a horrifying possibility, and I've no guesses as to how often it might happen. Children tend to accept and retain identities given them by their parents, e.g. most Irish Catholics were born to an earlier generation of Irish Catholics.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

While, on the other hand, people who want healthy limbs amputated are indeed considered by mainstream medicine to be suffering from a mental health disorder. Which is why such individuals are offered psychiatric treatment rather than orthopaedic surgery.

Very much looking forward to the RCT evidence which made it clear that sometimes you work on the mind rather than the body and vice-versa. Without such evidence, we'd be forced to conclude that the medical establishment is winging it, just like they did with recovered memories.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Good job this is all irrelevant to the topic of this thread - since mainstream medicine now recognises that transgender identity is neither a delusion nor any other form of mental health disorder.

(While, on the other hand, people who want healthy limbs amputated are indeed considered by mainstream medicine to be suffering from a mental health disorder. Which is why such individuals are offered psychiatric treatment rather than orthopaedic surgery.)

Why is trans-affirming surgery such an important part of this totally-not-a-disorder self-identity?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why is trans-affirming surgery such an important part of this totally-not-a-disorder self-identity?

For some transgender people it is, for others it is not. For those who want such surgery, mainstream medicine decrees that it's appropriate to provide it*.

Do you still, after all this time, fail to understand that transgender identity is now accepted by mainstream medicine to be "totally not a disorder"?** That it's only a small group of people - people who think they know better than the collective world experts in the relevant fields, and that their view should trump that of the experts (seemingly purely because they've decided they've figured it out "properly") - who continue to insist that transgender identity is a disorder/delusion/deviancy (complete with tellingly sardonic references to "LARPing", "men pretending to be women"***, deliberate misgendering, and so on)?

Have you really never asked yourself why mainstream medicine currently treats people with transgender identity in the way it does, while at the same time treating (eg) people who want healthy limbs amputating (or people identifying as attack helicopters) in a fundamentally different way? Has it never occurred to you that this fundamental difference is because mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a real, valid condition as opposed to any form of mental health disorder..... while at the same time, mainstream medicine considers people who want healthy limbs amputating (or people who identify as attack helicopters) to be suffering from one or more mental health disorders?


* Back in 2004, I ended up in a major London hospital needing plastic surgery after complications from intestinal surgery. The plastics ward of that hospital was also the London hub for transgender-affirmatory surgery. My consultant also performed that type of surgery, and I talked with him about it on a few occasions. I have no doubt that he believed in what he was doing, that he believed in its necessity and its benefits, and that he felt he was acting totally in line with the Hippocratic Oath. Because of the way mainstream medicine viewed transgender identity (and transgender-affirming surgery for those who want it). On the other hand, I feel pretty confident that he would never perform surgery on a woman who identified as Cher, in order to make her look more like Cher. Because that woman would be classified as suffering from a mental health disorder, and she would consequently require psychiatric therapy rather than surgery.

** Sometimes, of course, people are offered therapy for gender dysphoria. But you've previously demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between gender dysphoria and transgender identity. I'll use the same example I've used previously: sometimes gay people struggle to come out as gay (maybe they're from a very religious family, or they simply feel that their life chances might suffer if they come out). And such people are often offered therapy to help with their "sexuality dysphoria". That's analogous to gender dysphoria. And sexual identity is analogous to transgender identity (and neither of them are disorders).

*** Strangely enough, this sort of opprobrium exhibited by transgender denialists seems almost exclusively to be directed towards transwomen. Almost never towards transmen. I wonder why that might be? Any ideas?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Toddler Rapist Now Award-Winning Trans Rights Activist

Words fail me to describe what an outrage that is.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Toddler Rapist Now Award-Winning Trans Rights Activist




This is happening way too often. And although I don't know how it is in the jurisdiction in question, I do know that here, once a man has declared trans status and changed his name, it is to all intents and purposes a new identity with the previous one deleted. It won't show up on DBS checks unless the man himself volunteers to the prospective employer that he was previously known by a different name. It won't show up if police are searching suspect's criminal records. And we know that Ian Huntley managed to get a job as a school caretaker by changing his name so his past record wouldn't show up. This has been tightened up now for general use, but transwomen are exempt from any disclosure of their previous identities.

There are way too many of these men showing up with criminal records involving sexual assault and even assault on children. That Katie what's-his-name is in court again on child sex charges, I saw today.

These men are not women, but they're being treated as an especially rare and valuable sort of woman who should be given positions on advisory bodies.

Unreal.

[RoMo]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*** Strangely enough, this sort of opprobrium exhibited by transgender denialists seems almost exclusively to be directed towards transwomen. Almost never towards transmen. I wonder why that might be? Any ideas?

Maybe it's because transmen generally aren't putting any males at risk when they enter their sex-segregated spaces (I'm not saying that transwomen are necessarily a risk to women, just that with self-ID there is no way of knowing whether the person entering the female space is a bad actor who has said the magic words)? Maybe it's because transmen haven't benefitted from male puberty when playing sport?

I'm sure people on this thread might have mentioned these things one or two times before.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually that catchphrase generally refers to a man claiming to be a woman being charged with or convicted of some sort of sexual offence. Which seems to happen on a daily basis.

Puppycow was refusing to believe that mothers encourage their little boys to transition because they (or more accurately their husbands) would rather have a straight trans daughter than a gay son. (Actually they'll most probably end up with an asexual trans daughter.)

We pointed out several links, and that this seems to be a form of Munchhausen by proxy. Susie Green did so well out of it she was appointed to a senior (and I imagine well paid) job running Mermaids.

Fair enough. I see where the evidence was posted now.

In my defense, I don't think asking for evidence is equivalent to "refusing to believe". I was skeptical and I wanted to understand the basis for that statement. Am I entirely convinced? No, but I see now that it could be a factor in some cases. Munchausen by proxy is real, but rare, and I see no reason why something like that couldn't be happening in a few cases. And it could be that she enjoys all of the attention that this has brought her, like being invited to give a TED Talk. I'm sure she would deny it though, and I am not a mind-reader.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by RoMo

Maybe it's because transmen generally aren't putting any males at risk when they enter their sex-segregated spaces (I'm not saying that transwomen are necessarily a risk to women, just that with self-ID there is no way of knowing whether the person entering the female space is a bad actor who has said the magic words)? Maybe it's because transmen haven't benefitted from male puberty when playing sport?

I'm sure people on this thread might have mentioned these things one or two times before.

We do occasionally discuss transmen, because there seems little point in starting another thread on that subject, but the topic of this thread is transwomen, so it seems perverse to complain that we're not concentrating on something else.

As I've pointed out numerous times, this is not a symmetrical situation. The reasons for girls and women wanting to "change sex" are very different from the reasons boys and men want to change sex. The actual results are also very different.

Women and girls are not aggressively trying to invade and dominate male spaces, making the men feel uncomfortable and threatened. Transmen are physically smaller and weaker than men, and tend to try to blend in more than the panto dame performances we see from many transwomen. Men may indeed feel a bit uncomfortable if they see someone they read as female in a male intimate space, but they don't feel threatened.

And yet we keep getting this "but what about the transmenz??!!" from the trans activist lobby here. Well, what about them? What do you want to discuss about them? I'm sure nobody is trying to avoid such a discussion.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Fair enough. I see where the evidence was posted now.

In my defense, I don't think asking for evidence is equivalent to "refusing to believe". I was skeptical and I wanted to understand the basis for that statement. Am I entirely convinced? No, but I see now that it could be a factor in some cases. Munchausen by proxy is real, but rare, and I see no reason why something like that couldn't be happening in a few cases. And it could be that she enjoys all of the attention that this has brought her, like being invited to give a TED Talk. I'm sure she would deny it though, and I am not a mind-reader.

You were more than sceptical, you were firmly insinuating that I'd made it up. Even now you're retreating into "well maybe a few rare cases but it's not really a thing". We have two separate examples from two different continents where clinicians are discussing it as a phenomenon, one actually saying "there won't be any gay kids left at this rate!" That's hyperbole, no doubt, but it's not a few rare cases either.

If you find the right part of the Mermaids and other trans-mummy forums you'll find a hell of a lot of examples. And no, I really don't think Susie Green transitioned her son in order to be asked to do a TED talk.