What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

I was quite enjoying the Jungian discussion. I know why there is suspicion of digression on these boards but there were several posters involved in the exchange and I thought it was one of the more interesting diversions, even if most of it went right over my head. Mind you I had to look up bloviating too.

I'm not sure why but Prisoner Cell Block H keeps coming to mind.

It is possible that people do not find your bloviating on Jungian archetypes as fascinating as a shopping list

I'm sure...So discuss what interests you, and leave others to discuss what interests them. Personally, I find your attempts at pithy, pointed put-downs pretty boring; even though you seem to rate them quite highly, yourself.

Are there psychiatrists or psychologists who advocate for compromise with those who are anorexic, or want their limbs removed?

There was an overlap with Russell Reid in UK
Reid supported the amputation of healthy limbs. After a couple of publicised operations, this was ruled unethical in the UK.
Later Reid faced disciplinary measures for unethical practice.
During this he was supported by TRAs.

Wiki
(extract)
"In 2006-2007, Reid was investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC), the regulatory body for doctors in the UK. A serious professional misconduct hearing opened following complaints brought by four doctors from the main NHS Gender Identity Clinic at Charing Cross hospital, west London, and some of his former patients. It is alleged that he breached international standards of care, set by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) by inappropriately prescribing cross-gender hormones to patients and referring them for sex reassignment surgery without adequate assessment.

Britain's primary lobbying organization for transgender and transsexual people, Press for Change, was quoted as saying that Reid received support during the process from more than 150 patients as well as additional experts in the area. Ultimately, the enquiry found Reid guilty of Serious Professional Misconduct, mostly for failing to communicate fully with patients GPs and not documenting his reasons for departing from the HBIGDA Standards of Care guidelines sufficiently. However, the panel "determined that it would be in the public interest as well as your own interests if you were to return to practice under strict conditions." and allowed him to return to practice, subject to some restrictions on his practice and hormone prescriptions for the next 12 months.

Reid was a member of an expert committee set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to draw up new UK care guidelines on the treatment of Gender identity disorder. " (coninues)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Reid

2007 Guardian by Julie Bindel
(extract)
"If I had been properly assessed, it would have been obvious that sex-change surgery was inappropriate for me," says Claudia. "I was desperately unhappy and was going for a sex change because I felt under pressure from my boyfriend." No searching questions were asked about her background and no warning or preparation were given as to the impact of such life-changing surgery. That surgery took place just three months after her consultation with Reid.

Since the case against Reid began, many in the transsexual community have spoken in support of him. Websites serving the gay and transgender communities are full of comments about how Reid has shown phenomenal support to numerous transsexuals. He "has saved the lives of many trans people, treated them with respect and left them with the dignity they deserve," reads one post. Many others wrote in, agreeing." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/may/23/healthandwellbeing.health

2003 Sunday Telegraph by Juie Bindel
(extract)
"Today the best-known psychiatrist dealing with transsexualism is Dr Russell Reid, who runs a private practice as well as working in the NHS. In 2000 Reid was involved in controversy over the condition known as Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), where sufferers can experience a desperate urge to rid themselves of a limb. Reid was one of the psychiatrists who referred two patients with BDD to a surgeon for leg amputations. ‘When I first heard of people wanting amputations it seemed bizarre in the extreme,’ he said in a television documentary at the time, ‘but then I thought, "I see transsexuals and they want healthy parts of their body removed in order to adjust to their idealised body image," and so I think that was the connection for me. I saw that people wanted to have their limbs off with equally as much degree of obsession and need.’

But to what degree should doctors be acquiescent to the ‘obsessions’ and ‘needs’ of patients; should there be a point at which they are duty-bound to say no? I asked Dr Reid how he decides on the suitability of surgery for a GID sufferer. ‘The patient makes their own diagnosis, and I confirm or refute it. If I am happy that they are serious about considering surgery in the future, I will prescribe hormones and expect them to live as a woman (or a man, if it is a female-to-male patient) for at least a year. If, after that time, they are mentally stable, living a reasonable and public life and functioning as a whole human being, and if the hormones have been effective, I would consider them worthy of surgery." (continues)
archive.li/1bcWN#selection-287.0-295.716

So, a shopping list is preferable to an interesting and involved discussion?

It is possible that people do not find your bloviating on Jungian archetypes as fascinating as a shopping list.

My view: Transsexuals have a mental disorder whose discomfort is ameliorated when society and individuals indulge them with reasonable compromises. This is a traditional psychiatric view although it is rarely stated that bluntly."

Oddly enough this so called traditional psychiatric view does not apply to compromise with any other body dysmorphic disorders.
Are there psychiatrists or psychologists who advocate for compromise with those who are anorexic, or want their limbs removed?

Twitter comment by Ray Blanchard linked previously

Why have you quoted me here? Is there something that I am supposed to be inferring from these links?

fall for the government's smears of Assange hook, line and sinker.

Two women accused Assange of acts meeting the criminal definition of rape. I believe those women. I have paid no heed to what govts have said about him.

That thing about the purple triangles is so much part of this. So much.

The discovery that even people who in many respects are decent, honourable people, but will dishonourably repeat slurs and lies, has been a bit of a shock.

Maybe I'm naive, but I've been genuinely shocked by how dishonest and disingenuous people whose work I admire and who are decent, reasonable people in many respects, are prepared to be either for their own egos or their own ideology, or their own careers or organisations or whatever it may be. Even feminists.

It's made me reassess everything really,

With regard to Blanchard - in a way it's not surprising that for doctors, they are not considering wider social issues so much. They are concentrating on their patients. That's the way medicine is constructed to a large degree, the way they are trained, and the way they are used to thinking.

Twitter comment by Ray Blanchard linked previously:

"My view: Transsexuals have a mental disorder whose discomfort is ameliorated when society and individuals indulge them with reasonable compromises. This is a traditional psychiatric view although it is rarely stated that bluntly."

31/3/2020 Ray Blanchard:
"Trans women are biological males with mental disorders causing distress with aspects of the male appearance & social status and desires for the corresponding features of women. This can be ameliorated by social acceptance as women & legal fictions granting partial female status."

twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1244998953046814721

Blanchard is a psychologist & sexologist who was part of a group of sexologists/psychologists/surgeons who decided it was within their gift to grant some men access to women's spaces & services whilst constructing false narratives that they could became women/ 'partially female'/live as the female sex or could change their 'social sex'

Dr Em's recent articles are important reading:

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part I: Benjamin, Ihlenfeld, Money & Ehrhardt'

(extract)
Dr Em explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs.
uncommongroundmedia.com/sexist-science-transsexualism-part-i-benjamin-ihlenfeld-money-ehrhardt/

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part II: Robert Stoller, True Trans'
(extract)
Dr Em reveals how ‘true trans’ doesn’t exist & Robert Stoller’s work shows how the ‘science’ of transsexualism/transgenderism has always been anti-feminist."
uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/

With regard to Blanchard - in a way it's not surprising that for doctors, they are not considering wider social issues so much. They are concentrating on their patients. That's the way medicine is constructed to a large degree, the way they are trained, and the way they are used to thinking.

Doctors aren't necessarily the main people who should be talking about or making wider decisions about what is appropriate in terms of social changes or structures. They will be able to provide certain kinds of expertise, but their duty in many ways is to look out for the interests of the patients as they see it.

I wonder if maybe one of the things we have seen around this issue is that we don't have a very good mechanism any more for certain types of sophisticated public discussions. Large parts of journalism, and many public intellectuals, and the political sector, don't seem to have anything like the same level of discussion or ability to think or even make nuances statements. It often seems to me that it isn't the bulk of us who are different, but the people at the level that would be leaders in the discussion.

People imagine we should leave these treatment decisions to doctors who are experts, but they don't seem to have a concept that doctors expertise is narrow. They are not philosophers of medical ethics who are necessarily prepared to think about the wider issues.

It has revealed to me that most people will be easily led.

And it was quite ironic to see smart women on here, who were flabbergasted how the government and politicians left and right endlessly repeated obvious untruths like 'transwomen are women' and at the same time fall for the government's smears of Assange hook, line and sinker.

Consequently I have come to see Hannah Arendt as one of the greatest thinkers of all times.

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

It was indeed. The response to the suggestion that perhaps women's needs should also be taken into account is first confusion that anyone might deem such a thing necessary, then anger when the women asserting their needs fail to apologize for bothering the important men and agree that their needs are irrelevant.

That's nailed it, kittens. A woman pointing out that he is a man, and this only benefits men, so can he stop, riles him up so much he blocks her. For being rude 🤣

Once you see the mentality, it's a shocker.

Hey, it's a start!

Blanchard that is.

He did retweet something I wrote about the spousal exit clause afterwards, so at least he is aware of the issues now.

Thanks tinsel, I'll have a read of that.

You'd think I wouldn't you, that he'd listen to, for instance, transwidows.

Not only are they about as expert as you can get in the entire process, they are impacted by it every bit as much as the person concerned, if not more. And their narrative will be more truthful. He himself admits that there is a lot of deceit and self deceit.

So, very definitely, one of the things I've noticed after looking at this issue, is how sympathetic other men will often be.

Wasn't it James O'Brian who dismissed Posey when she said she didn't want to change with males, with a blindly self entitled what on earth do you think we're going to do?

And then agreed, in hushed, reverent tones with a transwoman on the phone when they said they didn't want to get changed with males.

It was indeed. The response to the suggestion that perhaps women's needs should also be taken into account is first confusion that anyone might deem such a thing necessary, then anger when the women asserting their needs fail to apologize for bothering the important men and agree that their needs are irrelevant.

The whole incident was quite instructive in unintentionally displaying how the situation where ordinary women were not considered, came about.

I'm not surprised when men like Blanchard don't instinctively get it, but when they actively refuse to do so and dismiss women's concerns that's a different issue. I'm sure part of it is the "expert" idea - he sees himself as one so who are these random women telling him that he doesn't know how to do his job? Which of course isn't what they're doing, but at that point ego is involved.

It went on for a couple of days IIRC.

This was one of the tweets, you can see him getting cross in the replies:

twitter.com/blanchardphd/status/1212815433616805888?s=21

Blanchard got taken to task over this by feminists on Twitter a while back, so maybe you saw it there?

I didn't see it, no. Let me know if you have a link.

When I first read what he had written about AGP, etc, I didn't realise he was fairly accessible via Twitter.

It's only when I subsequently saw what he was saying, in the context of a huge pushback by women and feminists, that I realised they didn't form part of his narrative at all.

You see it a lot, actually. Particularly with men, who totally understand fetishism, boys in girls loos etc, but because it's not seen through a feminist lens, they're not connecting the dots. So they might get sport and dormitories but not appropriation of the very word woman.

It's why, for me, it's often frustrating even listening to men talking about it, it's too one-dimensional (with some notable exceptions).

Possibly. I can't remember exactly what I was reading when I formed the opinion that he doesn't really see it. He was almost questioning 'reasons', without the bloody blinding obvious staring him in the face.

Blanchard got taken to task over this by feminists on Twitter a while back, so maybe you saw it there?

He really didn't like it.