Violence Against Women

I don't doubt that EBAL will correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this thread is about the self-harm that women partake in when they mutilate their bodies in order to fit in with the patriarchal masculine/feminine paradigm.
The subject is self harm
And the discussion is; should this self harm be institutionalised (in medicine) and normalized (by society) or should we question the enforced gender roles of patriarchal society and they harm they do to individuals
Which is a basic founding question of feminist tenets

Well, that is what the OP should have said, isn't it? But it didn't.

For what it is worth, I don't think the fundamentalist religion comparison is fair on Beachcomber, whose statements about not needing a 'journey' to understand feminism (paraphrasing) I agreed with.

Otherwise, this is another heartsink thread in FWR 'Chat'. Bring back the old bunfights, all is forgiven.

Actually it would be interesting to have a proper discussion about FTMs, rather than the usual ill-tempered and repetitive fighting over MTFs. Unfortunately this thread is not it.

As an aside, if we lived in a society without ludicrous imposed gender roles (something surely everyone on this thread wishes for) it would be much easier to get a sense of whether transsexuals genuinely have something different about their make-up that means they feel a natural affinity with the other sex rather than their born sex. Or whether many of them have internalised gender roles, realise they don't suited the roles of their born sex and hence at a very early age subconsciously decide they should belong to the other sex.

Since we don't have this ideal society, and in the absence of any science bar the vaguest speculation, it is impossible to make any firm judgements as to the causes of transsexuality and I am pretty unimpressed by anyone who claims that we can.

Sigh.

The term "experimented on" suggests no planning or forethought by the person undergoing treatment.

People make choices every day that may have a negative impact on their health long term, but free will is a wondrous thing.

You are the one making these claims. Why should we google?

Back up your opinions if you have faith in them.

The thing is, EBAL, once the phase 1-4 clinical trials of any drug or treatment has been completed and all regulatory and safety tests passed, the only way to ascertain long term effects is to release the treatment for market use and undertake follow up population studies as required. It's the same for a cardio drug, a drug for the neurological system etc. some treatments do get withdrawn after years of use for this very reason.

Much though it pains me to trot out a MN favourite.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Lots of things are meant to increase the incidence of heart disease or cancer. Without some kind of clinical study or trial, it could just be because of one of the multiple causes of cancer trotted out in the Daily Mail on a regular basis.

No, you can't change your biological sex M to F or F to M, but that doesn't diminish the experiences of trans women who want to be a man. (note: not male, but a man.)

Women have quite enough of men dismissing their feelings, or telling them they don't know their own mind without other women joining in as well. It's a bit presumptuous isn't it.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 02-Oct-12 12:44:20
Men who want to be women have been taking hormones for "sex changes" since the 50's. There have been very few women doing so until very recently. From those that have there is the suggestion of a massively increased risk of cancer, heart disease and circulatory illnesses.

Cite for that please? Assertion doesn't make it so.

But the numbers of women involved are so small until recently,

Cite for that, please?

that this is not statistically significant.

What size of sample would you consider statistically significant, and why?

So actually we dont really know the long term effect on women.

Shocking how the medical establishment would willy-nilly introduce a treatment there was insufficient evidence for. Had a word with NICE?

EBAL I am pretty sure that medical ethics would require the doctor to explain that there was only studies of the effect of X number of years.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 02-Oct-12 12:28:19
You do know there are some nice MRA sites you might enjoy?

I suspect you may have more familiarity with them than I do.
I'm actually interested in feminism, and learn a lot here. I'm also prepared to engage with other posters and provide reasonable validation for my views...

I also take to heart lessons about my tone...

I also start considerably fewer threads and guess I might probably irritate less people, despite my gender.

Eats
I would so like to ask some of the women you are 'representing' here. And ask them what they think.

Eats
You didn't answer my question about the 90% who were happy. Or the reasons for the 10%being unhappy (that I think Kim asked)

And again - you are making bold statements about a sensitive issue without backing them up with facts.

If I were to go on a thread about vaccinations and say they were harmful, then I would be asked to provide EVIDENCE of my claim.

A blog that presents a one sided view of the issue is NOT evidence.

I could present my blog as evidence of pro-choice, but it is of course just as biased as a anti-choice blog.

A blogger collects links and evidence that backs up his or her viewpoint.

To be fair, there are many people who are required to take medication for long periods or for a lifetime. My nephew diagnosed as diabetic at age 8 will take injections of the hormone insulin at least daily for the rest of his life. A friend from colleague who had a total hysterectomy at age 21 due to cancer is only now "coming off" hormone replacement therapy at the time when she probably would have been going through the menopause otherwise. My eldest sister has a dodgy thyroid and has been on the hormone thyroxine for about 30 years now.

There are risks involved in taking hormones or any drug for a long period of time. As time passes though, more evidence amasses to refine treatments, to reduce the negative side effects while optimising the therapeutic effects. Hormone therapy has been given to transgender people since the 1950's, so the concept isn't exactly new and there have been plenty of opportunities to study the longer term effects.

Kicks off with an appeal to read an article from a blog with a very trans critical viewpoint.

Follows up as a "sort of" medical expert, who's unfamiliar with citation or precis.

Recaps other threads and tries to refight arguments already unsuccessful...

Revisits level of awareness of feminist theory.

If this poster was a man, most readers would suspect them of being deliberately disruptive.

[In passing, I'm pleased Beachcomber highlighted the points below:

Radical feminism is straightforward and simple - you don't need to be well read or any kind of expert to get it.
Women don't have to learn about women's issues - we live them and experience them. Feminism has never been an academic subject.

Of course there is brilliant feminist analysis, that puts into words in an incisive, trenchant and coherent manner what many of us experience and feel - and it is vital that women can read and use that analysis if they want to.

But you can have a strong 'handle' on feminism without ever having read any texts. Thank god.

I imagine that has saved an awful lot of women and awful lot of time. I'd add there are very few things in life I've instinctively got without some study. I'm pleased that isn't the case for some women and feminism.]

Unfortunately I can't find the link (if I do, I'll post it later,) but some months ago, I read a very interesting article regarding the motivation of many "pro life" campaigners and demonstrators. I'll paraphrase what I can remember below.

The article said that they genuinely believed they were doing the right thing ethically in trying to stop women having abortions. They felt sincere in their belief that such women were risking serious harm to their physical and/or mental health and hadn't been fully informed of the risks. They often quote "research" and testimonies of women who've said they've suffered lasting damage from having abortions. They don't despise those who seek terminations, but believe they are succumbing to pressure from others - partners, doctors, activists, wider society - or are just misguided in thinking an abortion will solve their problems. They freely suggest what they see as "viable alternatives" to abortion and believe they are morally justified in intervening in the personal choices of individuals for the greater good of society.

The article then goes on to describe the position of those feminists who oppose medical or surgical treatment for transgender people. As one might guess, there are quite a few similarities with the above in terms of rationale for their beliefs and how they attempt to translate these into action.