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

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

The fact that not all differences in behaviour or choice are socially or politically constructed in the way that it has been common to assume in some circles.....and that personal identities and feelings about the self are often shaped by far deeper forces and by collective archetypes (& thus stereotypes) than many give credit for. And that these archetypes and stereotypes originate from actual differences between the sexes.

I don't think it's of greater interest, but it was derailing a potentially interesting thread

I wasn't addressing you - I was addressing Mermoose

I posted my thoughts on the thread starter......some people questioned my views. I explained them further. A few other people with interesting and valid thoughts and questions became involved. Far more interesting than a shopping list of pet hates.

You seem to be someone who doesn't like dissent or any alternative view on matters, judging by your responses. Posting a considered view and detailing it in response to question is not a derailment.

My personal view for what makes an interesting thread is obviously quite different to yours. But you know, there is room for multiple views and conversations in any one thread. You don't have to engage with every single one of them, if you don't feel inclined.

I don't think it's of greater interest, but it was derailing a potentially interesting thread.

Justhadathought perhaps it would be a good idea to start another, separate thread about how Jungianism relates to ideas about male and female and femininity and masculinity? I feel a bit bad for starting that discussion because I think it's derailing this thread

Fair enough! But in the first instance I was responding in good faith to the question posed in the thread starter - about what broader issues has the trans debate opened my mind/eyes to.

Perhaps you could start one, if it is of greater interest?

One thing that occurs to me is that it's revealed to me the damage accepting weak arguments can do in the long term. There have bene plenty of areas of activism where certain phrases or tropes have been allowed to stand, and they were always questionable or weak. But maybe people found them simple or pithy or whatever.

And then all of a sudden they are being used to support something else that is clearly problematic or even dangerous.

The other part of that is the damage that happens when those kinds of things aren't subject to strong criticism because to do so is seen as bigoted in some way.

The one that always immediately comes to mind for me is the "Love Is Love" campaign. Seems nice on the face of it, in line with everything pop tv and music say, lends itself to slogans on t-shirts and nice little graphics, and seems to support equal marriage campaigns so if you look askance you must be bigoted, right?

But you really don't have to dig deep to see that it's meaningless, untrue, and can lead to all kinds of nasty conclusions. But when people are hesitant to object for fear of being labeled, none of that comes out. And then you see it appearing in some other area where maybe you had assumed that of course, no one would ever support that idea.

Sorry that was in response to tinsel

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.

And how the blanket, and inescapable, prevalence of porn is teaching them to become aroused by the degradation and humiliation of women

Yes. And it links up with this ability for men in particular to develop fetishes to almost anything. Porn is indeed now programming a vast swathe of men into becoming aroused by what was previously considered extreme, niche, unpleasant stuff. Through sheer weight of numbers, they are now gaslighting women into accepting it morally and physically - accepting porn use itself, accepting the ridiculous consumption rate of it, and accepting the increasingly extreme content. I genuinely cannot see where it will end in terms of extreme content, nor when it will end given that so many men are now addicts and have a vested interest in internet content that facilitiates their orgasms.

AGP, porn, extreme content, prostitution: it's all men working towards the normalisation of their sexual fetishes/predilections basically and then the mass co-opting of others into servicing them.

Porn. It's like teaching people to drive by showing them car chase scenes in movies.

Maybe he just doesn't see it as his department?

I know, it makes it all the more frustrating. He has direct experience of TRA fury and outrage, and has documented it under narcissistic injury I think.

For such an analytical man, it always shocks and depresses me that he doesn't see the damage to women. I don't know what's worse, that he doesn't see it, or that he does but doesn't care. To me they're almost as bad as each other.

Surely an analysis spanning decades should take into account the underlying societal reasons and impact.

Apart from the numerous other things already noted on this thread, it was the realisation of how so many men are led by the desire to orgasm. And how the blanket, and inescapable, prevalence of porn is teaching them to become aroused by the degradation and humiliation of women. To such an extent that they want to be that woman.

This is one of those once you see it you can't unsee it things. RE Blanchard, my assumption would be that it's bros before everything coupled with the fact that his focus is on what he thinks is best for his patients to such an extent that he fails to notice when what's best for them is what's worse for everyone else. Which predictably hasn't stopped TRAs from attacking him and his family (the stuff some American TRAs wrote about his then very young daughter was just vile).

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?"

Apart from the numerous other things already noted on this thread, it was the realisation of how so many men are led by the desire to orgasm. And how the blanket, and inescapable, prevalence of porn is teaching them to become aroused by the degradation and humiliation of women. To such an extent that they want to be that woman.

Ray Blanchard, a man who has studied transsexualism for the best part of 30 years, calls AGP a target location error and appears to have a great deal of sympathy for AGP men, and HSTS men.

Although he asserts that the reasons for transition are always sexual, he never seems to take into account the women for whom it's damaging.

His understanding and sympathy appears to be solely reserved for men who become aroused by women's humiliation.

He has studied the phenomenon for 30 bloody years, why hasn't it turned him into a raging feminist?

No matter how often this false flag action is debunked as being false flag, there are those who will not forward on the correction because it suits their agenda for the lie to be perpetuated. It's dishonest, appallingly so, and shows these people for the liars they are.

The same is true about the false claim by Emma the MN intern that "Mumsnet are calling for a new section 28"

Emma Healey failed to read/ understand a post properly, cutting it out of context to construct a false narrative. It was shared & believed by many, including politicians.

Just as yesterday MPs Nadine Dorries, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield passed on a clipped part of interview with Keir Starmer which constructed an entirely false narrative:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/14/labour-urges-tory-mps-to-admit-keir-starmer-video-was-doctored

A TRA called @12thGuelph made a facetious comment on Mumsnet that trans people should wear a purple triangle. The comment was deleted but not before it was screenshotted and circulated widely as 'this is what people on Mumsnet think'. Just the other day I saw a TRA on Twitter, who probably believed what they were saying, claim that 'Mumsnet wants trans people to wear purple triangles'.

No matter how often this false flag action is debunked as being false flag, there are those who will not forward on the correction because it suits their agenda for the lie to be perpetuated. It's dishonest, appallingly so, and shows these people for the liars they are.

It has led many women to analyse the damage done to women and girls by transgender theory and by Choosy choice liberal feminism.

If your shiny new feminist analysis starts with trying to suss out what's going on with trans activism and how it got the traction it did so quickly I think it's a pretty easy and intuitive jump from there to taking a clear eyed look at all the sex work is work and empowering/sexualizing yourself via providing selfies for randoms to wank to is also empowering/basically dick pander as hard as you can and it will bring you power and happiness, somehow stuff.

I never once mentioned or referred to AGP males.

Yes I know.

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?"

This debate brought me to feminism, and I delight in it having been largely responsible for the feminist upsurge of recent years.

It has led many women to analyse the damage done to women and girls by transgender theory and by Choosy choice liberal feminism.

frithluton.com/articles/the-animus/: Quite an interesting link which explains what lies behind the concept of the anima and the animus.

Justhadathought perhaps it would be a good idea to start another, separate thread about how Jungianism relates to ideas about male and female and femininity and masculinity? I feel a bit bad for starting that discussion because I think it's derailing this thread.

One of the things the Jungians are typically quite concerned about is people using the archetypes as what you might call identities. These types are part of who we are, but we sometimes choose to wear them as masks, and can begin to believe they are who we are and that's it. We then depend on that for our sense of self and security, but it isn't stable - you aren't a whole person this way. People also hang these types on other people, you see your mother perhaps, or your wife, only through this archetype of motherhood, which no one can live up to and isn't enough for anyone. So it's not about some sort of effort to make yourself fit a pattern

Very well put, as usual.......Yes, identifying as an archetype is what often occurs in disordered mental states. But also true that we all tend to project our own unconscious content and archetypal patterns onto others; onto key people in our life. We get attracted ( for better or worse) to an intuition of what pattern that person represents for us.

I think you're over complicating what motivates most AGP males

I never once mentioned or referred to AGP males. I was explaining the mechanisms, as best I could, of Jungian archetypes.....as they relate to male/female, feminine/masculine.

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?"

Patterns & dynamics of narcisstic / coercive control.
Once recognised & then understood it can be life changing (if rather scary to recognise the prevalence & impact)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

OccasionalKite quite right I think I derailed the thread there. Apologies.

I believe there's a rule of misogyny about that....

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?"

The fact that men are, and must be, accepted very easily in whatever they say they are; and that women are, and must be, what men say they are.