Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

Following on from Iam64's post 're Bruce Reimer, you can read more about it here if you're interested: embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case

It's a heart breaking read of experimentation on a child. He committed suicide at just 37.

Iam64

White wave, apologies if I misunderstood one if your posts. I understood you to suggest that if children were raised gender neutral, the differences in play, interests etc would be broadly similar till hormones kick in.
David Reiner was a Canadian man born male. He was raised as a girl following medical advice after his penis was severely injured during bitched circumcision in infancy. Dr John Money, a psychologist specialising in ‘sex changes’ advised surgical and later hormone interventionto change the infants physical sex presentation.
At 17 months old the boy known as Bruce became Brenda. His twin brother became the control group. Neither child was given the truth, both raised believing Brenda to be female. At 9, Dr Money described Brenda as an active happy little girl, a tomboy.
By 13, Brenda was suicidal. The parents ended contact with Dr Mooney. Against his advice, they told their children the truth. Within weeks Brenda has become David. He had re-constructive surgery and married. Both ge and his brother developed mental health problems, both died in their 30’s

This tragedy started in 1965 so a long time ago. The Cass report from the Tavistock GIDS clinic confirms my view (shared by other gender critical feminists) that the model of early medical intervention, taking as the starting point the child’s belief they were burn into the wrong body, is not based on a firm body of research. The starting point should ge as it is in any other Medici/social treatment service. An in depth, analytical, research based assessment of the child’s holistic needs

Yes I absolutely take that point, because it undoubtedly relates to the subject that I am loathe to tackle which is hormones. Which suggests nature and nurture are not simple, and beyond my pay scale but I’m ready to give it a go?

eazybee

*Violet Sky*: have you been called boring?

Yes, I've only ever started one trans related thread that was just meant to be one positive in a sea of negative and answer a question that keeps being asked where it wouldn't be missed.

*Violet Sky*: have you been called boring?

White wave, apologies if I misunderstood one if your posts. I understood you to suggest that if children were raised gender neutral, the differences in play, interests etc would be broadly similar till hormones kick in.
David Reiner was a Canadian man born male. He was raised as a girl following medical advice after his penis was severely injured during bitched circumcision in infancy. Dr John Money, a psychologist specialising in ‘sex changes’ advised surgical and later hormone interventionto change the infants physical sex presentation.
At 17 months old the boy known as Bruce became Brenda. His twin brother became the control group. Neither child was given the truth, both raised believing Brenda to be female. At 9, Dr Money described Brenda as an active happy little girl, a tomboy.
By 13, Brenda was suicidal. The parents ended contact with Dr Mooney. Against his advice, they told their children the truth. Within weeks Brenda has become David. He had re-constructive surgery and married. Both ge and his brother developed mental health problems, both died in their 30’s

This tragedy started in 1965 so a long time ago. The Cass report from the Tavistock GIDS clinic confirms my view (shared by other gender critical feminists) that the model of early medical intervention, taking as the starting point the child’s belief they were burn into the wrong body, is not based on a firm body of research. The starting point should ge as it is in any other Medici/social treatment service. An in depth, analytical, research based assessment of the child’s holistic needs

Perhaps VS you should accept that your views are not shared by the majority on GN. You seem to have an obsession with trans women and have even started another thread on the subject today. I’m sure we all know your views. Please stop banging your head against a brick wall trying to get everyone to agree with you. It’s not going to happen.

Elegran I do agree the discussions need to happen, just individually. Every thread v becomes about every negative thought people have about trans people. 0 issues are resolved

VioletSky But without open discussion of the issues involved, those organisations and businesses you speak of who are getting it wrong won't have the relevant "pinch points" made clear to them, so that they can work on getting it right. That should not (and mostly does not) mean that it is OK to use abuse against those with different opinions. I would guess that 99% of posters on here are perfectly polite in stating their opinions and explaining why they hold them.

If all the viewpoints are not aired, and all the arguments are not examined (in a civilised way) then they won't cease to exist - they will still be festering if what is fair for only one part of society becomes a fait accompli against the interests of other parts. That would not be a good outcome for anyone.

On trans threads I've been misunderstood and accused of gaslighting when I've tried to explain.

I've been called passive aggressive for trying to be careful I put things kindly

I've been accused of being abusive

I've been told I'm stupid

I've been told I'm not a feminist

I've had my abusive childhood brought into discussion

Ive had a period of very devastating illness that is not related brought into discussion

I've had my profession brought into discussion

I've been placed in the same basket of trans activists and been told I condone violence against women

I've been told what I must think or feel as a trans ally

That's what has rightfully been deleted as personal attacks which are against guidelines, not "silencing women".

I know some may not have seen this or may not recognise it when personally invested in these discussions but it is there and it is difficult to feel welcome and wanted in discussions when you accept trans women as the gender they feel

GagaJo

Equality with whom? - Equality. With other humans. Treated equally. Equal rights to healthcare, employment, essential services.

Established by what means? - Legally and in society.

These are core tenets of feminist. And this is why, as an intersectional feminist, I believe these should be extended these to all.

Thank you GagaJo, but I still don't understand. What does Equality. With other humans. Treated equally mean?
Its a bit vague, so if you could explain more clearly.

Do trans not have access to medical treatment? That's appalling. I thought they could just go to the docs like anyone else.

What essential services don't they get? Transport? Hospital care? Education? Bus passes?

What do you mean by established legally?
Who has said that a transman doesn't have the right to be or be called a transman or a transwoman the right to be or be called a transwoman.

Are you saying they aren't allowed to do that? Its not in any of the reading material I've looked at.

I do read the threads on this issue but have not commented previously as I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject. I do however feel quite strongly that there is no evidence of deliberate and orchestrated silencing of supporters of trans rights on any of the threads, I have only seen fair but robust discussion.
My opinion on the subject, for what it’s worth, is that any living person has a right to identify as male, female or other as they feel appropriate to them. Choose the pronoun they wish to use and be shown respect and understanding. Except with regard to the safety of others, so that any person with male genitalia should not be admitted to female hospital wards, female prisons, female changing rooms, female toilets and most particularly a refuge for abused women. That is not to say that all trans women are dangerous but that the majority of natal women must be protected from the minority who might be abusing the system.
The only other exception should be sports competition in the interests of fairness and equality.

Got to stop getting burnt in the sun and this needs re-charging.

Just as well call the Sun the Moon, but what is the point?
There are no conversations to be had , if some refuse to accept historical descriptive words.

I've been turfed out of the garden by the unexpected early arrival of flat pack furniture that I haven't made space for yet.

So I need a little more procrastination before dealing with it.

Honestly I feel that trans people's rights are now being protected.

The rights women feel they are losing are all coming from organisations and businesses that are trying to impliment that protection of trans peoples rights.

Some organisations and businesses are getting it right and some are getting it wrong.

Eventually everyone will get it right but in the meantime the discussion needs to be about those instances individually not about whether or not we agree trans people should have those rights or whether we believe trans people are deliberately trying to take our rights away on every thread.

Because simply they have always had rights and all that has changed is that level of protection that has been inplimented due to the desire of some to not respect their rights.

Galaxy

Well your sex which is present in your whole body impacts on your rights. In the way disability or race can impact on your rights. I agree that gender is a social consruct but my view is we should be challenging that social construct rather than entrenching it.

Oh I absolutely agree. It is the only thing we can challenge. We can’t challenge our sex, physical or mental disabilities, or race, amongst other things - they just are.

winterwhite

Whitewave (and others ,but you are the one who said this most clearly), I think the argument that gender is 'assigned' at birth is simplistic.
From general observation it seems to me that under-fives of both sexes play with cars or dolls indiscriminately. Perceptions of difference and a sense of being a boy or girl kick in at primary school and are very strong at the ages of about 6-8. So strong that I believe they are innate (i.e biological) and not induced by adult expectations.

Yes they do and left entirely without culture children would be as you suggest, but they don’t live without culture.

Of course this has been recognised and the feminist argument has done a lot to encourage gender neutral environments but it is an enormous battle that they are very far from winning.

With regard to biological maturity that is absolutely right, but and this is the big but whilst reaction to the opposite sex is innate, their rolls as boys/girls, men/women are learned.

There is of course innate behaviour and this is where the ‘elephant’ strides into the room disguised as hormones.

This is what feeds into the argument over men/women space.

Well your sex which is present in your whole body impacts on your rights. In the way disability or race can impact on your rights. I agree that gender is a social consruct but my view is we should be challenging that social construct rather than entrenching it.

Galaxy

Am not sure what you mean sex is a protected characteristic.

No what I’m saying is that gender is a societal construct .

You learn how to behave as a man or woman.

Sex just is - it is immutable.

So I was born female with all the biological accoutrements.

My rights are assigned to me as an individual (female) not to my arms, legs, heart and uterus.

Whitewave (and others ,but you are the one who said this most clearly), I think the argument that gender is 'assigned' at birth is simplistic.
From general observation it seems to me that under-fives of both sexes play with cars or dolls indiscriminately. Perceptions of difference and a sense of being a boy or girl kick in at primary school and are very strong at the ages of about 6-8. So strong that I believe they are innate (i.e biological) and not induced by adult expectations.

* On paper, feminists shouldn’t have a problem with any minority wanting equal rights. But they have with this.*

I think it’s because usually, granting rights doesn’t mean taking rights away from others.
Some basic examples
Fact-Giving girls the right to play football in female teams, wasn’t detrimental to boys and didn’t stop boys playing football or interfere with all male teams.

Fact- Giving gays the right to be gay without the persecution prevalent in the last century, wasn’t detrimental and didn’t take anything away from males.
In my Opinion- Jamaica claiming the right to be a republic, is not detrimental to the UK or takes away any UK rights.

Now the rights being demanded by a few are detrimental to others.

Giving any males, the right to compete in female sports is detrimental to females chances of winning.

Giving any males the right to be in safe spaces for vulnerable females, who have been traumatised by abuse by males is detrimental to females and does take away the rights of females.

These two examples apply whether the gender a male has chosen is to be a man or to be a transwoman.

So the massive arguments then centres on what women and feminists (don’t forget the young can teach us nothing about feminism as we invented it, although I accept the arguments have moved on) see as the men adopting the women’s role and impinging into the space women have carved out for themselves over the decades, and still not always achieved.

I’m not saying at this stage I agree or disagree with this.

So then now to the nitty gritty and which may get me into hot water.

I will start with the premise that an individual has a right to live without fear or hindrance in their every day life.

(Blimey we have a long way to go to that ideal I think)

That will include everyone.

So those transitioning should be able to live without prejudice.

Those who want to live the role of women but remain as physical men have a right to do so without prejudice.

Those who choose to neither transition nor change their gender roll have a right to do so without hinderance or prejudice.

And everyone in between.

Am not sure what you mean sex is a protected characteristic.

At the moment I actually think that feminism has nothing to do with it,

Bear with?

It is about the accepted rights of an individual regardless be they men or women. Note I don’t use the term male or female as biological sex has no ‘rights’.

In day to day life I try not to treat men and wonen differently so am not sure how I can treat someone as the opposite gender. In terms of spaces such as refuges etc I think these should be segregated by sex. I dont see how you can segregate them by gender as that means differwnt things to different peopke.