Sarah Vine in DM - Calvin Klein's surreal advert trivialises trans debate

I'm sorry, not trying to derail, but I genuinely don't understand! Does it not cause more issues if the person thinks their body is 'wrong'?

These people don't think their body is wrong, exactly. That's gender dysphoria, which is what surgical treatment was supposed to be a "cure", or at least a palliative for, if psychological treatment was ineffective.

These gender people are doing it more for more complex psychological reasons. The body modification is partly a ritual induction into a group, partly an assertion of control over the self, a whole bunch of things.

So it's not as inherently contradictory as it might seem.

Here's a take on the "ritual" part of the phenomenon I found interesting the other day, that I think has a lot of truth in it.

Gender Identity Isn't Real

Medical transition is ritual purification.

[...]

If those who are born Black or disabled are the chosen, trans people are the converts who have voluntarily accepted Marginalization. They choose to suffer more from their involuntary embodiment. Because of this, they become virtuous. They are saved.

Girls in particular have often had an urge to self-harm - cutting, bulimia - and this is an organised outlet leveraging that.

Very little connection to the prototypical 20th century dysphoric transsexual (usually male, very rare).

On another note, is the person having the baby still taking hormone treatment whilst pregnant?

I would hope not. Testosterone has permanent effects on stuff like hair growth - it's not going to go away when you stop taking it.

But these permanent effects includes the reproductive system - it effectively causes an induced menopause, so I would strongly imagine a woman doing this after having been on testosterone is going to have a more risky pregnancy - maybe similar to an older mother, maybe worse.

We're not talking a couple of glasses of wine here, folks. It's serious system disruption.

Please, PLEASE, could someone explain why a person who wants to 'be male' does the most obvious thing only a biological woman can do? I'm sorry, not trying to derail, but I genuinely don't understand! Does it not cause more issues if the person thinks their body is 'wrong'? I know I'm going to get some flack, but still.

On another note, is the person having the baby still taking hormone treatment whilst pregnant?

I notice the hairy belly etc.

Un fucking believable!

That poor poor child.

The person having the child must have terrible mental health to do that to their body but still want to do this most female thing in the world. Pregnancy.

And their partner? A person with a penis I assume, since they got the other pregnant?

History will look back on this and be shocked.

Next time I see anybody with Calvin Klein underwear peeking out, I will will be judging!!

Unusually buy the kids some for Xmas but that's def not going to happen now!

That poor poor baby :(

What a shit show.

Well I am all for queering the boundaries of gift giving. If any if you lot want to get me a birthday present I'd like some tiger worms for my compost bin please. No girlie chocolates or flowers for me. No Calvin Fucking Klein undies either.

I was actually thinking of buying another Calvin klein bralette but no, I won't. That image is so warped.

I assume it's queering the boundaries of Mother's Day, rights. Or expanding the bandwidth or some such.

As much as I hate to agree with Sarah Vine on anything, she consistently writes with clarity on this issue and I applaud her for that.

She is simply and straightforwardly asking questions that women urgently need an answer to - knowing full well it will be seen as 'hate' by the hard of thinking.

Sarah Vine tells us this ad is aiming at Mother's Day, marked in the US in June I think. Am I the only one who thinks buying your mother underwear for Mother's Day is a bit ... well, weird?

That advert shows the world has gone mad. Completely mad.

It seems they think it's fashionable. Just like the fashion industry thought being underweight was. It's also a bit like when companies throw rainbows and glitter all over their branding but only in certain companies - to project an image and hope to make some money at the same time. It's vapid. And it does trivialise the issues.

I thought we had agreements on stuff like not having excessively-thin models due to encouraging unhealthy behaviour in women? Surely this is exactly the same?

This is one certainly one of those historical media artefacts people will look back on in a few decades and go "WTF"?

As indeed, those of us awake to the current situation already are, and indeed those totally unaware of it.

You have to be inculcated into a very particular group-think to believe that this is acceptable - or pretend that you find it acceptable because you know it's what you're supposed to say.