Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

The problem, flowers, is that you've been trying to get those of us who have seen it before to perform female socialization and gently nurture the person whose bollocks we've already seen through.

I don't try to get anyone to do anything other than acknowledge that not everyone is in with the in crowd.

It's useful to know that you have found JayCee to be a pita. But you shouldn't assume everyone else has seen the previous performances and are pandering. I wasn't. I try to listen to all sides of arguments and retain and open mind. That doesn't mean I agree with everyone to be nice. It just means I like to think about things from different perspectives.

JC is ruthlessly taking advantage of women's good natures and it's both emblematic of the way TRAs relate to women overall and frustrating to watch. Someone probably does need to respond each time just so he doesn't succeed in diverting the discussion away from important questions but I feel like nobody should have to deal with this bollocks all the time. Maybe we can work out a rota.

At this point I'm mostly wishing there was a "hide commenter" button so I didn't have to scroll through another 5000 words of the same self-focused waffling from JayCee. I resent being used as a source of narcissistic supply and that's why I stopped responding to him.

I stopped responding when the original flounce off resulted in a return with a repurposed set of arguments that just so happened to be exactly the arguments used against JC that had made JC flounce off in the first place. Was entirely unsurprised by the subsequent outing about the TRA board.

Responded here because I thought Barracker was making an extremely vital point and I was infuriated by the thousands of words from JC desperately trying to deflect from that extremely vital point so that it would get dropped.

Unsurprisingly, not allowing the point to be dropped triggered a narcissistic rage, another flounce, another return, and more threatened flounces, along with something about one-eyed because they always, always, always give themselves away by being unable to resist a personal appearance insult.

At this point I'm mostly wishing there was a "hide commenter" button so I didn't have to scroll through another 5000 words of the same self-focused waffling from JayCee. I resent being used as a source of narcissistic supply and that's why I stopped responding to him.

flowersonthepiano
The phrase used was 'it's a shame'. That doesn't mean anyone or anything is 'shameful', it's just an expression of disappointment. All I get from Jaycee's posts is someone who likes to talk about herself a lot - but I'm not sure if that is what AngryAttackKittens meant. If you are finding the discussion useful for understanding the issues, that's great. Personally I barely skim Jaycee's posts now, as she seems to be repeating herself a lot, and I think I could write her life story myself from what she's written (and I'd use fewer words). She also never answers a straightforward question like 'what do you mean by gender?'

The problem, flowers, is that you've been trying to get those of us who have seen it before to perform female socialization and gently nurture the person whose bollocks we've already seen through. Some of us are not going to do that.

Basically a lot of us have been at this for years and have already decided that appeasement and careful use of language designed not to be too direct is not the most effectiv way to go. You can go that way, if you like, but you can't make others do the same.

flowers

She didn't call you (or others) shameful, she said it's a shame about female socialisation. Not the same thing. She's being blunt, not attacking you (or others).

Brief JC history so you understand where some of us are coming from: appears... types many long posts about self... gets challenged about self-ID and flounces off... reappears... types many long posts about self which suddenly incorporate the anti-self-ID stance that caused the first flounce off... gets challenged again a few days later and flounces off again... reappears... types many long posts about self... gets outed as using MN interactions to report back to a TRA board co-ordinating anti-feminist tactics so flounces off again... reappears... types many long posts about self... gets challenged on deflecting from potentially useful discussion points... threatens to flounce off again....

Rinse and repeat.

AngryAttackKittens
Remember that old Maya Angelou quote about listening when people tell you who they are? JayCee has told us who they are multiple times. It's a shame that only a handful of people are able to get past their female socialization enough to listen and acknowledge what they're hearing.

Some of us are new to these boards and have only recently started thinking about these issues. Yes, I am a product of female socialisation. Yes, I tend to take people at face value. That probably makes me naive. You do want others to see the problems being discussed here don't you? And get on board with trying to change things? Because calling others shameful for not seeing what they have not seen the "multiple times" you have is likely to exclude exactly those you need to convince. OK, you don't need to be a fluffy tolerant submissive sop, but do you really want to drive potential allies away? I don't know Jaycee or you, but found their posts and the ones combatting them enlightening. Or do you want us to get with the #nodebate programme?

I dunno, I'm finding drunk Lang quite entertaining! And you manage to do it in comments of less than 1000 words too.

Well, I trundled over to the local pub for a couple of hours, got more than three sheets to the wind, and exhibited my manly side as I bayed for blood watching Anthony Joshua hit someone. (I shouldn't be allowed to watch boxing. It's my Achilles heel.)

And now I've got a raging hangover.

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

If you don't see why it's a bad idea to write laws about something the law can't define, Rat, I really can't help you. It's not rocket science. Try reading Debbie Hayton's article from yesterday, where Debbie makes exactly this point.

Barrack's challenge about the definition of legal terms is vital to the preservation of women's rights.

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

I don't mean some vague "words mean something and without them how will we identify the oppression of women as a class?" - because whilst that's all well and good I can't picture the real world scenario that will be made impossible; be it in law or whatever.

I can see we might have to adjust our use of language in order to convey our intended meaning, but even the clearest wordings are ambiguous and rely on interpretation; I find myself arguing the toss over incredibly carefully worded contracts at work all the time!

Are there any examples anyone could give please?

Remember that old Maya Angelou quote about listening when people tell you who they are? JayCee has told us who they are multiple times. It's a shame that only a handful of people are able to get past their female socialization enough to listen and acknowledge what they're hearing.

Words and mincing and alcohol do not generally result in finest hours for Langs.

I dunno, I'm finding drunk Lang quite entertaining! And you manage to do it in comments of less than 1000 words too.

Have you ever read about "forced teaming"? I read about it the first time in the DeBecker book The Gift of Fear.

I know JC would have us believe that the only problem is self ID, and that old school transexuals are not an issue.

But I've never really made that distinction. The scale will be wildly different, yes. But all trans (either sexual or gender) are self ID. The only difference is that a panel rubberstamps the former and not the latter.
But in both cases men are given permission to be treated as if they were female when they are not, and I am prevented from asserting my boundaries as an actual female.

I'd really like to talk about this properly with someone like JC, but the frustration of holding a conversation with someone who avoids the actual essence of the matter is almost not worth it.

I see such glaring hypocrisy and it infuriates me.

Feelings that are indefinable (yet claim the word woman for them)
Body which is still male after modification (but we'll claim documents which call it female)
Relief for dysphoria (but still the demand of validation by others)

You can't stand there saying you demand nothing of women whilst you wear our identity, prevent us from drawing a line around our own category, hold your legal documents that grant you forced entry to us.

Why even use the word woman when you know it means us?

This is why I respect Miranda so much. He has faced himself honestly and worked through this. His journey has integrity.

Thank @OldCrone. That would explain it, certainly although the phraseology of the statements does seem awfully familiar from some of lobbying TRA groups. Will do some digging if i have time. Did i read that Mermaids have provided the NHS policy basis?

I wonder who wrote these actual words

I think they're all using the Yogyakarta Principles as a framework for 'best practice'. The Scottish GRA consultation referred to them:
3.08. In 2006, the non-binding Yogyakarta Principles were agreed by a wide-ranging group of human rights law experts, representatives of nongovernmental organisations and others. They set out existing international human rights law and principles, as the authors believe they should be applied to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Principle 3 asks countries to: “take all necessary … measures to ensure that procedures exist whereby all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex including birth certificates … reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity”

The Scottish consultation also referred to resolution 2048 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
1. ... The fact that the situation of transgender people is considered as a disease by international diagnosis manuals is disrespectful of their human dignity and an additional obstacle to social inclusion.
3. ... In addition, administrative burdens and additional requirements, such as a period of “life experience” in the gender of choice, make recognition procedures generally cumbersome...

None of this is legally binding, but it seems to be where anyone goes if they want to write documents about transgender issues.

I wonder who wrote these actual words... do TRA organisations have a lobbying and consultancy function? Many of these kind of statements are remarkably similar, given the historical diversity and disorganisation of their originators' positions on a number of things such as treatment pathways for eating disorders or autistic spectrum disorders... why so unified, so fast? Who is feeding them?

I must say you two versus some of the equally one eyed trans activists out there should be worrying many ordinary women who have genuine concerns about transgender issues and what might happen.

Because quite possibly whilst you just pick fights with one another and look for agendas where non exist self ID might just get voted in whilst you are looking the other way.

I certainly do not want the current plans for self ID to happen as I have said but will leave you to your search for definitions whilst Rome burns.

-2 for failure to stick the flounce. Again.

It's minus eleventy billion by now, isn't it?!

I have started drinking. Best I sign out for the night cos my words will get even less minced. Words and mincing and alcohol do not generally result in finest hours for Langs. Have a good evening, all!

-2 for failure to stick the flounce. Again.

If only we had more common sense and discourse instead of silly arguments between activists on both sides but of which I never have been and never will be one.

But I can see that is never going to be possible on here given the posts above.

Hopefully hotheads fighting one another will not be the ones that make the decisions in which all women have a stake.

Not just Feminists and not just trans activists.

Happily I suspect it will whatever anyone says on here.

Barracker - it is simply because there are no words to describe what is a kind of ineffable inner state that you have felt since you were old enough to think that the problems you see as problems exist. I don't see them as problems of reality just of trying to explain what I doubt anyone who has not experienced it can grasp.
It is called mental illness when the problems you see as problems do not actually exist. Specifically body dysmorphia. I should think you would know that.

It appears that for some males who identify as transgender or transexual it is body dysmorphia, while for others it is a fetish that they will go to any lengths. For a huge percentage their disorder is co-morbid with NPD. The reasons for females who identify s transgender are also body dysmorphia for some, but it appears so far that trauma is also a cause for some. Currently there is a huge problem with social contagion due to transgender advocacy being widespread. That seems to be all they have figured out so far. Partly because the transgender lobby is doing everything they can to prevent research and to discredit the research that does not affirm their desired results.

JC comes here to talk about themselves at length and to take what we say back to their transgender forum to share. Why they have not been banned yet for this behavior is beyond me.

I think Jaycee is someone we need onside

Is that when Jaycee is reporting back to the TRA site Jaycee frequents about how being a fifth columnist on Mumsnet is going? Or just when Jaycee is here? Or just when Jaycee is flouncing off (for another five minutes)? Or do you just mean we should read every single one of Jaycee's interminable posts all about Jaycee and then display due female socialisation by congratulating Jaycee on allowing us to read them?

Sorry, no to all. And I'm very well aware I'm not mincing my words.

There are some TS people hereabouts that I like and have a great deal of time for. Likewise in my real life. What I don't have time for is endless deflections from the point at hand.

Langcleg. I cannot define these terms any more than anyone else can. Being transgender does not mean you understand what they are.

Some activists might want to define such terms but not sure why they would.

The GRA made sense and was defined via medical assessment. The Equality Act seems to be a softer fudge. But you need lawyers to define terms that are going to have legal implications.

This thread was started as being about what psychologists and psychiatrists were saying on the subject and I just wanted to put into perspective what my interactions were with them to explain what they did and why.

I could do that. I cannot do what you ask and define terms I understand no more than anyone. Lawyers need to do that.

Nor am I trying nor have I ever wanted to erode women's rights.

Your beef is with trans activists and I am not one.