Senator Rand Paul questions Rachel Levine about puberty blockers

As in the posts have been reported? Makes sense

Indeed.

Rand Paul is an utter shit and no friend of women

but even a stopped clock is right twice a day

You can expect a pile on then anyoldlabour from activists who would like to see you (and all of us who speak for women and children) awarded that final strike of silence.

As in the posts have been reported? Makes sense.

What is the line for FGM then? Simply affirmation of a cultural view of how a female nethers should look. Female cosmetic affirmation. But words; words are brutal and mutilate a gendered soul.

You can expect a pile on then anyoldlabour from activists who would like to see you (and all of us who speak for women and children) awarded that final strike of silence.

26/02/2021 20:51 FamilyOfAliens

WTF @MNHQ?

Why have you deleted @UppityPuppity’s factual post? What would you call transgender surgery then?

I can see now why KJK was banned from Twitter for being honest and factual about a certain 16-year-old being taken abroad to have a certain surgical procedure that was illegal in the UK for under-18s.

Thank you Family.

Yes - why was my post deleted? I merely reposted a quote from the guardian posted up thread by Royal Corgi Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, compared transgender surgery misleadingly to genital mutilation and accused Levine of supporting “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia” and called the author out to state how these exact terms are misleading.

How are they the wrong terms? Remember - this is about the genitalia and safeguarding of children.

Allison Bailey has retweeted this link for US citizens, with a template to email or tweet Senators asking them to vote no to the Equality Act. On the Democrat side Senator Manchin might be good to contact as he's in a "red" state.
shoutout.wix.com/so/9bNVWYYrV?languageTag=en#/main

I do get your point about the language. We frequently actually find it quite hard to figure out how to post I'm an acceptable way. Not because we want to be provocative or make a point but because sometimes what appear even small adaptations, it does make you feel like you are almost complicit in something you feel to be harmful by doing so. It's a really difficult position to be in.

I think it highlights again, how if its not a mental health issue then why are all the words around it so controversial.

My family had zero problem telling me they hated my hair when I dyed it red.

My friends tell me when I've put on weight or look like crap. They don't care that I do they are concerned about why. I value that honesty even if it sometimes stings a little. Sometimes I genuinely don't give a shit other times I'm grateful fir the kick up the arse.

The inability to even hear the words though, is a problem. How do you convince anyone you are fine, when you react so strongly to the words used

Yes, I agree @Whatwouldscullydo. We need to draw out the parallels. But language that is perceived as perjorative and subjective won't help us to do that, IMO. Your tattoo example is a good one. Some people do see them as mutilation, but I doubt anyone considering a tattoo would be convinced to reconsider by being told that. They would be more likely to dismiss the opinion as so fundamentally different from their own perspective as to be irrelevant.

Basically we do not want people whom we could win over re PBs and GRS to have an excuse to dump us in a mental dustbin labelled "right-wing loons". Because then they don't listen to us.

In other forms however uts a tern no one really reacts to. Take body piercing, tattoos, plastic surgery etc far fewer comments using that word would be removed. Most people are well.aware other people dislike tattoos and are usually confident I their choices enough to not really care.

There is an argument like say with sex, where if you cant talk about it , can't discuss the consequences etc should you be doing it.

Taking trans people out of the equation for a second, forgetting about their choices, I'm not going to comment on what individual people may or may not feel about choices they made and the terms they use.

I think we need to be concerned with the way those perhaps performing the surgeries or medical treatments etc deliberately detach the terms from practices that have shared outcomes in say other countries. Breast binding vs breast ironing etc

One is seen as acceptable the other isn't. Why?

Removing genitalia, or use of PBs then cross-sex hormones, leads to permanent infertility and loss of sexual function. We need to raise public awareness of this. I agree with @Whatwouldscullydo that euphemisms hide this.

OTOH, there is no point being in the right if no one will listen to you. That is the key point I am making.

You may consider GRS mutilation, and I would not disagree, but a lot of trans people including detranistioners find the term offensive.

The effect of using terms like 'mutilation' is that a lot of people who might have been prepared to listen to a debate about the medical effects of transition will simply turn off. It is therefore harming our cause.

Some posters seem to be unable to distinguish between being in the right and winning over other people. We cannot stop children being harmed if no one will listen to us.

Their attacks on trans people in the transgender community are just mean. Mean,

Gosh, and the transitioning of children too young to weigh up these life changing facts and the irreversible impact on their bodies...how do we describe that? I expect that's what some of those kids will think when theyre older, with health problems such as brittle bone, heart disease, stroke, inability to have children, I can hear it now: "damn those grown ups, for helping to do this big ole meanie thing to me". Or maybe they'll feel a bit angrier about the absolute failure to protect them.

We need to use medically correct but publicly- understood terms like 'infertility' and 'permanent loss of sexual function' to describe what is happening.

I don't think FGM is an equivalent, as that happens to girls against their will, whereas trans people choose to have surgery.

If we actually called things what they were

Indeed. The harsh reality may actually stop and make some people think before embarking on this process. But no, we have to sanitise the harsh reality, lest we offend someone.

I actually thing the sanitised language around it all is more of a problem.

Top surgery
Puberty blockers
Bottom surgery

If we actually called things what they were .....

The trouble is, using language like 'mutilation' in a public context is unhelpful and counter-productive. It's going to make anyone who has had the surgery - including detransitioners - feel shit about themselves. And it is going to turn off many people in the US who might have been prepared to question whether children should be having GRS.

This is my point about Rand Paul. He is so divisive that he is harmful to the GC cause, even if we agree with his concerns.

Lipstick Alley and Mumsnet - TWO corners of sense on the interwebz. Comforting.

Haven't seen any TRAs foaming at the mouth about the hideous terfs of LA yet, though. Why might that be?

Stanilanded 😅

Thank fuck for the House of Lords this week. Sensible, clear, respectful debate from all political viewpoints on the left and the right. (apart from the Lib dems). is that scenario possible in the US? The peers can speak freely without fear because they can't be sacked (ever) or no platformed.

Lipstickalley sees through the bull too www.lipstickalley.com/threads/bidens-new-trans-asst-health-secretary-cant-answer-question-if-little-kids-should-get-sex-changes.4433716/

concerning