Frack's reference post

Frack's AIBU thread has gone (TAAT).

Frack has moved on.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The robust academic mind at work.

Triggered by mention of the very thing she started a thread to advocate for - my fat arse and saggy tits.

Sorry. Serious and important thread. But honestly!

I hope there's the opportunity to vote. Such a great new feature.

She'll get a warm reception in AIBU.

I can't be bothered with thread about a thread chasing. Frac is probably going to do what lots of other people do in her situation, search out people who will constantly affirm that they are right.

No doubt we have all tried it when we've been cut down to size, I know I have.

This thread is why FWR is so important.

Frack has moved on.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3739688-AIBU-to-expect-not-to-be-gaslighted-in-Feminist-Chat

Frack will have fainted in horror if she's still reading. Did you know this is currently happening to young women and their breasts Frack?

You don't see much therapy as politics in this neck of the woods, but Frack is giving us a good demonstration of it on this thread.

"Responding from a place of trauma" for goodness sake. I guess as men aren't traumatised by male oppression, we should just leave all the discussions up to them as their troublesome emotions won't be getting in the way.

Frack, all women are traumatised in the patriarchy unless they are very, very lucky. That doesn't detract from our ability to analyse and discuss what men do to us and how we're going to stop them.

This is another weakness in liberal feminist analysis - the harmful things that men do to us are bad because they traumatise us. PTSD is the top complaint. They do traumatise and that is bad, but the political point (feminist point) is that they oppress us. They remove our freedom, which is the purpose. Of course Alison Phipps has already said that we white women shouldn't make politics out of our pain/trauma, we should ignore our political circumstances and instead visit a therapist I guess, so we can stop responding from places of trauma. I don't think it's going to work Frack. Men are just going to keep at it.

Julia Long's description of a young woman's double mascectomy on TV's Transformation Street is really powerful (5 mins in). This whole video is powerful, so if you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend watching.

I was there (a Haringey ReSisters event) and the speech was even more powerful in person.

@NotBadConsidering says they are only prepared to refer to Jazz Jennings‘ medicalisation and surgery in purely factual terms, not in flowery euphemisms that are designed to deliberately mask the real-terms outcome of JJ’s treatment, and OP’s direct response is...

I am going to have to leave the thread then

Just....what?? How mad is this?

This is someone claiming to be from an academic background, someone who has brought what they consider to be quality evidence to the table in order to have a meaningful debate, and yet they aren’t prepared to actually have a factual discussion because the reality of what has been done to JJ - the reality that OP is actively attempting to promote - is just too horrifying and triggering to discuss.

This thread is such a clear example of the wider debate. I sincerely hope it stays as a reference point for people who are new to the topic.

It is very hard to look at the proportion of UK presenters at GIDS who are presenting as sex dysphoric when they're actually somatising other forms of distress into a currently prominent form, if none of the pre screening by CAMHS that those who set up the GIDS assumed would be happening is practically available.

Absolutely this

theflushedzebra
I had the same idea & really hope it doesn't happen.

I can only assume Frack has left the thread because it has not turned out how Frack intended - and is in fact an excellent analysis of how children are being experimented on in the name of gender identity ideology.

I will also assume that Frack has made a big fuss about finding talk of Jazz Jennings "triggering" will be used in an effort to get this most informative thread removed from Mumsnet. Let's hope MNHQ don't fall for it.

I'm going to say that I dont have any problem with small questionnaire studies. If only because I'm about to do one myself... Lisa Littman's paper describing ROGD was a small, limited questionnaire study. It was still useful.

These studies can be part of the picture, but they absolutely should not be used to say that we genuinely know what the long term objective outcomes of any of the current treatments are.

It's very difficult to compare outcomes across different health systems, too. Say a review of outcomes in a system that gives children decent access to timely psychological support, for example, as opposed to the bleeding remnants which seem to be all that's currently left of CAMHS in the UK. It is very hard to look at the proportion of UK presenters at GIDS who are presenting as sex dysphoric when they're actually somatising other forms of distress into a currently prominent form, if none of the pre screening by CAMHS that those who set up the GIDS assumed would be happening is practically available.

It's interesting to see the reactions of some when confronted with the truth.

This is why there was such an outcry of supporters of surgery on children when detransitioner Charlie set up the Detransition Advocacy Network
in order to help the hundreds of young individuals she says have reached out to her after experiencing regret after undergoing hormonal treatements and surgical procedures.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/ex-transgender-starts-detransitioning-advocacy-group-i-felt-i-had-to-do-something

Sadly, the true extent of the irreversible damage for so many children will be uncovered over many years.

@FrackOff I'm happy to have shared something some might find helpful

I find it exceedingly helpful, Flack. Thank you for posting. I have learnt a lot from what you are posting.

1] You don't have an opinion beyond what you think these articles are saying and if you do [have an opinion], you refuse to share it, which really only leave others to make up their mind about you
2] You cannot debate a reasonable point
3] You refuse to answer a reasonable question
4] You are contradictory
5] I cannot trust what you say
6] When I feel the need to answer a point that you make, I don't have to, because several others do it for me, and probably better
7] You are arrogant

Sorry, mastectomy.. bloody phone/eyes...

I hope this thread stays because it is such an instructive example of the lines that discussion around this issue takes. Particularly, and shockingly, in academia it would appear.

Julia Long's description of a young woman's double mascectomy on TV's Transformation Street is really powerful (5 mins in). This whole video is powerful, so if you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend watching.

"25 minutes into the programme we see the surgeon cutting into the tissue of a healthy young woman who believes herself to be a man.

"We see her surgically reduced nipple being placed to one side, so it can be stitched back on later on. And we hear the soft slap of a sliced off breast as it drops into a kidney bowl..."

That description haunts me. As it should most of us.

I am going to have to leave the thread then.

But we're doing exactly what you asked people to do, FrackOff - discussing the material provided in your OP. And yet you're going to have to stomp off.

Nothing to do with having your arse handed to you then?

Commentary on your behaviour is not a personal attack Frack. Considering you felt able to start a thread accusing those of us who object to trans ideology of perpetuating white colonialism you’re already on shaky ground anyway.

The fact you have to leave a thread where medical procedures you support are laid out in accurate medical detail is frankly pathetic. If you’re unable to think clearly about these procedures how can you support them?

Although you did say it was the reference to ability to orgasm that triggered you first, so it sounds like you’re having trauma responses all over the place.

*Not that I understand the science, so this thread is very helpful

Captain

Yes, Frack had to point out that Frack has working class friends. And that Frack is an academic.

My credentials are that I am a female and a concerned parent who works with children.

Frack has been quick to point out their status, yet fails to answer if they are a parent. I want to know what skin you have in this game, Frack. Why you are so insistent on promoting a form of Eugenics on children?

Grooming and abuse needs to be discussed, if you feel yucky or triggered then why not use that big middle class brain of yours to analyse why? Though we all know the true answer.

But even if I was none of the above, I wouldn't need a doctorate to tell me that experimenting on children is wrong.

In which universe would such mutilation/amputation ever be right?

You have to sift through the personal attacks in order to get to the substantive issues and it's hard emotional work to sustain a rational discussion.

We've been trying to discuss the papers you posted and you're the one who is refusing to engage. If you've seen personal attacks you should report them, but I don't think saying 'I wonder why frack won't discuss this' counts as a personal attack.

The only thing that's really been 'proved' by the papers you linked to is that transitioning is often used to 'cure' homosexuality and that the treatments used have not been properly tested and have many harmful and unwanted effects.

Notbad

So true. Like top surgery and bottom surgery.

The correct terminology makes advocates uncomfortable.
Shame.