Good Law project have succeeded...

The mechanic will go right on being sexist and from the way you tell it, none of the people present seem to have actually thought that was in any way wrong.

It's clearly pointless explaining, as I don't think Robin will ever see it.

I'm not really surprised, but it is, nonetheless, a bit of an eye-opener. Little wonder that there are so many people who have not been subjected to a life time of sexism, who see nothing wrong in medically treating children, particularly girls, who want to escape being girls.

I think Robin inadvertently highlighted an important point here about one of the reasons why so many girls and young women now identify as transmen or nonbinary.

By the time girls are teenagers, they've already become aware of how differently they're treated from boys. Their opinions are viewed as less important than those of boys and they're assumed to be ignorant of anything practical or scientific. They want out of this, and the way to do this seems to them to be to identify as something other than a girl.

Just come across this, statements by Thomas Steensma, the original developer of the Dutch protocol:

https://twitter.com/will_malone/status/1366825810951213057?s=21

Dr. Thomas Steensma, who helped develop and implement the “Dutch Protocol” (the interventions of puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex-hormones), has made a series of public statements that under normal situations would be self-evident to most medical professionals:/1

He asks: “Where does the large flow of children come from who have suddenly registered for transgender care since 2013? And what is the quality of life like for this group long after sex change? There is no answer to those questions.” /2

And: "We don't know whether studies we have done in the past can still be applied to this time. Many more children are applying[for transition], and also a different type [many more girls who apply]./3

He continues: “The research on the small group of people from before 2013 may not apply to the large group that there is now. We conduct structural research in the Netherlands. But the rest of the world is blindly adopting our research." /4

Every doctor or psychologist who engages in transgender care should feel the obligation to do a good before and after measurement."/5

This follows commentary by Dr. Annelou de Vries (part of the same Dutch Protocol collaborative), reminding us that adolescents with recent-onset gender dysphoria (no childhood history of dysphoria) were not part of their study protocol./7

She writes that given uncertainties about outcomes in late presenters with no childhood history of dysphoria, there should be a renewed focus on psychological support, as hormones and surgeries may not be appropriate. /8
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/4/…

Dear lord. It's horrifying.

'Dr Em explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs.
The ‘science’ of the founding fathers of transgenderism/transsexualism – Harry Benjamin, John Money and Robert Stoller – are still cited and relied upon to change law, to put children on a path of sterilisation and surgery, to remove women’s rights and to argue that all women just naturally want to be treated as second class citizens.

No wonder feminists are targeted above any other group. Even those who are actually responsible for violence against trans people.

Also: from the FWS analysis Re Sandyford:

Transgendertrend has analysed the continuing increase in the number of girls referred to Tavistock, “In less than a decade there has been a 1,460% increase in referrals of boys and a staggering 5,337% increase in girls”, with girls now making up 74% of the total referrals last year.

5,337 percent. Who have all just discovered their 'innate sense of self'?

Despite the largest research study, lasting 30 years, concluding:

The brain is a unisex organ, according to a sweeping new review that found little difference between male and female white and gray matter.

They say past analysis has been clouded by neurosexism - the biased assumption that female brains are just wired differently from male brains.

'It's really not appropriate to think of the brain as coming in male-type and female- type, Eliot said, 'Just like we don't really think of the kidney or the lungs or the heart as coming in male- or female-type.'

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9339151/amp/Largest-study-date-debunks-myth-male-female-brains-different.html

Many thanks OldCrone

From the article by Di Ceglie
(extract)
"I started to read the work of Robert Stoller (1968, 1975) and other literature on transsexualism. These articles concern mainly work with adults. I found, however, that this reading didn’t help as much as I’d hoped in understanding the complexity of the condition. This patient had to move to another town and so her exploratory therapy with
me had to come to an end. In one of her last sessions she said that perhaps this form of help had come too late and that her parents should have been aware of how she was feeling by the way she behaved. She wondered why they had not sought help for her
when she was a child. Her thoughts made me wonder why there was no service for children with these rare and unusual experiences. This planted in me the seed for the creation of such a service.

Soon after the end of this experience I became a consultant in child psychiatry in Croydon and started a workshop there with two or three members of staff who were interested in this area. We tried to see all the cases in the London Borough of Croydon, with a population of about 300,000, who presented with gender identity problems and we ended up with 3 or 4 cases. Some were seen in family therapy and I took one case into individual therapy. This child had some of the features that Stoller had described.

However, in the clinical sessions I could find no evidence of a ‘blissful’ relationship with the mother. Stoller writes: ‘When extremely feminine boys are studied in childhood, I find that their mothers try to maintain indefinitely a blissfully intimate symbiosis with their son . . .’ (Stoller, 1992)." (continues)

Stoller is discussed in these Uncommon Ground articles by Dr Em:
'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part I: Benjamin, Ihlenfeld, Money & Ehrhardt'
May 1, 2020
(extract)
'Dr Em explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs.
The ‘science’ of the founding fathers of transgenderism/transsexualism – Harry Benjamin, John Money and Robert Stoller – are still cited and relied upon to change law, to put children on a path of sterilisation and surgery, to remove women’s rights and to argue that all women just naturally want to be treated as second class citizens. For example, Betty Steiner, Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker, current leaders in the field, begin their book with an outline of how ‘Harry Benjamin was one of the first physicians to realize the despair that transsexual patients suffer… In 1968 Robert Stoller published his views on transsexualism from a psychoanalytic perspective… and in 1969 Richard Green and John Money published their coedited book… which has become another standard work in the field’. The NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), a specialised clinic for young people presenting with difficulties with their gender identity subscribes to the views of WPATH. Their website references ‘the Standards of Care of the Harry Benjamin Gender Dysphoria association, which is now the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)’ and they state in other sections that they ‘agree with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that “knowledge of the factors contributing to gender identity development in adolescence is still evolving and not yet fully understood by scientists, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders in equal measure’.

I am unconvinced by the ‘science’ which gender dysphoria, and thus transsexualism/transgenderism, is based on. What was it that convinced you? Was it the small study of tomboys whose assertive play then ‘proved’ that there are girl brains and boy brains? Or was it the way some of the offspring of stressed out rats have coitus which ‘proved’ that prenatal hormones affect mating and thus a gender identity exists? Or maybe it was the hypothesis that the mother had been over attentive to a male child which made him either feel like a girl or wish to distance himself from the men his mother allegedly hated? Even one of the founding fathers of the idea of transsexualism/transgenderism admitted that the concept was undermined by reality, Stoller made the striking admission that ‘obviously, not all beliefs that are contradicted by reality are delusions’. What does that mean? Transgenderism/transsexualism is based on the original science, so after being met with repeated defences of ‘true trans’ or genuine trans have a medical diagnosis I did what I believe we should all do when we can’t get our head around inconsistencies – I turned to the sources. This essay will look at the early ideas of human sex change and emerging field of transsexualism before looking in-depth at the work and ideas of Harry Benjamin and Charles Ihlenfeld, John Money and Anke Ehrhardt. The second essay in this series will explore the work of Robert Stoller, the notion that violence against women is a necessary and natural part of a masculine gender identity and should be encouraged in children. Part two will then question the idea of true trans or genuine trans.(continues)
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
May 3, 2020
(extract)
"As well as relying on Benjamin and Money’s work, Robert Stoller applied Lorenz’s concept of imprinting to the postulated idea of gender identity. Originally published in 1968, Stoller’s first volume, Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity, argued that transsexualism was the result of faulty imprinting of appropriate gender (sex-role stereotypes). To blame? Women, of course! For example, regarding one child Stoller determined that ‘the child’s physical beauty and artistic abilities made his mother’s “task” of creating a transsexual easier’. Stoller analysed the dreams and self-reports of three (yes, three) case studies of children he deemed transsexual boys and their mothers to formulate a deeply sexist theorem of why children do not conform to sex-role stereotypes. Stoller explained his use of such a limited sample because ‘these three were the only cases of childhood transsexualism seen in the first 10 years of this research project… our having seen so few probably indicates that this is a very rare condition’. Stoller assessed how ‘all the mothers comment that at two or three, these little boys were talking with them as equals concerning feminine matters, and were already well on their way to a later-developed impeccable feminine taste’. He observed of the children that ‘all have a remarkable precocity with regard to painting, dancing, costumes, designing of clothing, acting, hair-dressing, story-telling, and love of music’ and concluded that this was a sign of a female gender identity. This is testament to how the idea of gender dysphoria cements rigid sexist designations of appropriate behaviour for the different sexes. A boy has a flare for creative activities – he must be born wrong according to the gender scientists. These abnormalities, according to Stoller, can be detected before the child is one. Stoller reported of the first child how ‘this boy had actually shown manifestations of femininity which his mother recognized were unusual when he was less than a year old; sitting on her lap, he would look at magazines with her and stop her whenever there was a photograph of a beautiful woman, expressing intense pleasure with loud cooing sounds’. According to Stoller this is part of the proof that the child requires medical correction and is truly transsexual. Go figure." (continues)

uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3896788-Important-series-of-articles-by-Dr-Em-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-I-Benjamin-Ihlenfeld-Money-Ehrhardt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3900484-Dr-Em-article-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-II-Robert-Stoller-True-Trans-an-ideology-which-is-antithetical-to-feminism

I'm not really surprised, but it is, nonetheless, a bit of an eye-opener. Little wonder that there are so many people who have not been subjected to a life time of sexism, who see nothing wrong in medically treating children, particularly girls, who want to escape being girls.

I have asked a million times, what do they think causes gender dysphoria? It's like their analysis of the situation can only begin after the diagnosis. The actual reason for it is never addressed, it's glossed over. Or called something meaningless like a sense of self.

Same thing really. He asked me to describe the 27 Litre Merlin engine I use occasionally and the 'vehicle' it lives in. Mr mechanic had his chin on the floor. It was very funny.

Not the same thing at all. The mechanic will go right on being sexist and from the way you tell it, none of the people present seem to have actually thought that was in any way wrong.

Di Ceglie wrote the service specifications of GIDS which they still follow. He also remains a member of the board there.

Within the principles that he asserted is the belief that children have a 'gender identity'.

The 'first case' which piqued his interest was a distressed teenage girl. Whether she had undiagnosed ASD / ADHD, had been subjected to abuse or was a lesbian no-one will know. Note how he took her case despite having no relevant experience or knowledge because he thought it would be good training opportunity and it piqued his curiosity.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359104502007003013?journalCode=ccpa

Thanks for that link R0wantrees. I couldn't access the full article from that link, but I've found an open access version here.

www.researchgate.net/publication/270564195_Castaway%27s_Corner

The last time this happened was at a garage when I queried the need for some work on a vehicle of mine and had the ‘noddy’ explanation from the mechanic which started with the words ‘Look, lady...’. The garage owner, who knows me well, then appeared and put the mechanic right, who then apologised

Out of interest, how did the owner “put the mechanic right”?

This story puts me in mind of Alex Drummond saying “women are allowed to fix cars too”.

Same thing really. He asked me to describe the 27 Litre Merlin engine I use occasionally and the 'vehicle' it lives in. Mr mechanic had his chin on the floor. It was very funny.

What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that men should take us seriously if we are able to 'prove' that we are knowledgeable (but not if we can't)?

Why is the default assumption that men know about engines and women don't? There are plenty of men who know nothing about engines and plenty of women who do.

Why do women have to prove themselves and men don't? Do you understand why that might make some of us a bit angry?

Women who are knowledgeable in such areas have generally had to work a lot harder to obtain that knowledge than men have, because we've first had to overcome the sexist assumptions that we shouldn't be interested, or are incapable of learning such things. This starts early - when I was in school, many subjects were considered 'for boys' or 'for girls'. I'd like to think this is no longer the case, but I'm fairly sure it is.

Yes. We are angry. Angry gets things done. Sitting passively and simpering while the world shits all over you doesn't.

I have also never, not even once, found it remotely funny. It just isn't. It's wearing and inconvenient.

Tedious, yes, funny, no.

The last time this happened was at a garage when I queried the need for some work on a vehicle of mine and had the ‘noddy’ explanation from the mechanic which started with the words ‘Look, lady...’. The garage owner, who knows me well, then appeared and put the mechanic right, who then apologised.

Now imagine you have been subjected to this sort of sexist attitude on an almost daily basis since you were a child (but usually without the apology you managed to get).

It's not a hilarious anecdote, it's normal day to day life for women.

Sexism isn't funny.

Frankly, I've rather got bored with being genteel and civilised in the face of sexism.
Been there, done that. That was my teens and my twenties.

Now I'm getting in touch with my feminist rage and I'm getting a lot more done.

I wonder, do you feel entitled to performatively yawn and tell them to stop getting angry if you're addressing other people about their experiences of lifelong prejudice?

Yawn. If your only response to the viccissitudes of life is rage, then you will live a harder life and make less progress than you might otherwise

Thank you for the advice on how to woman more effectively.

Yawn. If your only response to the viccissitudes of life is rage, then you will live a harder life and make less progress than you might otherwise

I think you are characterising and stereotyping a bit there. Raging, banshee feminists sort of thing; not the lovely, civilised genteel ladies who knows there are more than one way to skin a cat, and how to host a dinner party.......

I certainly don't post with "rage"; but some things are more than apparent, and why pussyfoot around rather than being direct and to the point? Posting is all about words on a page and points made. It is inevitable that words will be analysed and de-constructed.

We repeatedly see that transitioned adults are not able to easily listen to or give credence to different views, or to engage with questions and concerns: yet those adults feel that children are able to do what they are not.

Indeed.

I think we have again the two separate experiences of someone who has chosen to opt in, and those without the option to opt out. Validation is a pleasant thing when it validates what has been intentionally chosen: those who have not chosen to be treated in this way, have no escape from it and find no pleasure in being stuck with that subordinated, tedious place in life, will obviously find it rather different.

I noted the concern about levels of paranoia. I think my own concerns are that adults who did not transition as children, who have not experienced these experimental treatments into adulthood, and who are significantly personally emotionally invested with an inevitable and very powerful personal bias, are steering what should be a very objective assessment of the situation. There are ethics. There are many questions around safety and outcomes, severe lifetime impact, and the question is not to stop transitions but whether other approaches should be available with medical transition as a last resort for children with court support to assess this, and whether this should be something a child can do when it may permanently change and damage their body in a way they may later suffer from and come to regret having been enabled by adults to do.

We repeatedly see that transitioned adults are not able to easily listen to or give credence to different views, or to engage with questions and concerns: yet those adults feel that children are able to do what they are not. And the view keeps coming up again and again that some collateral damage to others is an acceptable price to pay. And yet its never specified. How many others? How bad? Where is the line? Where is the balance of protections?

Yawn. If your only response to the viccissitudes of life is rage

If the increasing misogyny reported daily across the globe isn't inducing rage in you, it's because you don't see it.

This may be deleted but women do know what sex people are. Something to do with an innate sense, I think men also know but I have only asked a few. A survey would reveal interesting results. Passing is a strange word and isn't used, at least I've never heard it used, by a woman except when quoting

'Yes Datun. That sentiment really irked me. My reading of it was Robin thinks it is funny because Robin knows these men are responding to Robin as female. Women don't find it funny because they know these men are responding to Robin as female.'

Yawn. If your only response to the viccissitudes of life is rage, then you will live a harder life and make less progress than you might otherwise. My whole working life has involved making progress for different groups in the workplace. But you stick with your rage and I will adopt the more positive, educational and nuanced approach (with an occasional iron fist in a tribunal). I'd love to think you might include trans people (of all ages) in that but some folk here seem to find that impossible. You have my sympathy.

These are children as young as 11. Why does no one have the courage of their convictions to explain how children can understand these things?

Bears repeating.

Courage of conviction is a very apt term.

Same thing really. He asked me to describe the 27 Litre Merlin engine I use occasionally and the 'vehicle' it lives in. Mr mechanic had his chin on the floor. It was very funny

It does sound as if you enjoyed the sense/feeling of two 'privileges' there. The 'privilege' of being called "Lady", and experiencing a tiny little reflection of what women experience routinely and quite profoundly; but also the fall back 'privilege' born out of a life and a knowledge gained through having lived 'otherwise'.

Yes Datun. That sentiment really irked me. My reading of it was Robin thinks it is funny because Robin knows these men are responding to Robin as female. Women don't find it funny because they know these men are responding to Robin as female.

Indeed. And, according to robin, its even funnier when those men were swiftly 'put right' and stopped their behaviour.

I don't image that the cessation of sexism being 'hilarious' is most women's primary reaction. Relief yes, mirth no.

Not to mention that for many women actually having superior knowledge isn't the sexism slayer robin imagines. Frequently it's quite the opposite. There is nothing like the misogyny of a threatened man.

These are children as young as 11. Why does no one have the courage of their convictions to explain how children can understand these things? Why does no one have the courage of their convictions to explain how it’s ok for parents to decide to do this to their children? There are only two possible explanations: either these 8 criteria cannot be rebutted, and these people would rather not admit they could be wrong on this, or these people are only in it for themselves and the children don’t actually matter.

It's very stark. You've asked over and over. We are all waiting for it to be addressed.

It isn't. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

These are children as young as 11. Why does no one have the courage of their convictions to explain how children can understand these things? Why does no one have the courage of their convictions to explain how it’s ok for parents to decide to do this to their children? There are only two possible explanations: either these 8 criteria cannot be rebutted, and these people would rather not admit they could be wrong on this, or these people are only in it for themselves and the children don’t actually matter.

Either way, I won’t forget.

This ^^

Life changing medication with no proven benefit, significant negative impact on health and a high rate of misdiagnosis.

It’s not good.