So disgusted tonight

Crispin Blunt, that odious MP who supported the sex abuser MP Imran Ahmad Khan, was very open about the [shelved] reform of the GRA being stitched up behind closed doors, wasn't he?

He went crackers at Liz Truss in the House of Commons when she made the 'shelving' announcement, and in his fit of pique revealed rather more than he and his cronies perhaps intended. I was watching live, and will never forget the fury on his face and in his voice, and what he said.

When it becomes heavily promoted as a "cool" thing to do, particularly amongst the young, then it becomes everybody's business. When surgery is marketed as a desirable commodity, it becomes everybody's business. When it becomes a political issue, it is absolutely everybody's business.

When it affects other people, it becomes other people's business.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?

Being gay = being sexually attracted to the opposite sex. A set definition which doesn't involve any stereotypes and is a commonality between all gay people.

Being a transwoman = feeling you are a woman.

So a question for you - what is a woman?

Can you answer that without using stereotypes?

Can you answer that by confirming a commonality between women and transwomen that doesn't require stereotypes that don't apply to all women?

Interested to hear your answers.

And I'm fine with people doing whatever they wish in their own time, money and spaces.

As soon as that involves telling children they can change sex; telling women they will be including males in women's sport; telling women they can't object to males in their spaces; telling women they can't object to male HCPs or carers; telling women that they are privileged over males; funding enormously expensive experimental treatments with our tax-paid healthcare system; removing the word 'woman' from every piece of legislation and thereby removing every protection women spent the past 100 years fighting for?

Yes, it's our business.

So gender dysphoria is not a crippling condition that blights the life of trans people?

Good to know. Because we are constantly told otherwise.

And if that's the case, then eye wateringly expensive treatment on the NHS isn't necessary.

None of it makes sense, does it?

It has to be a crippling condition, in order to qualify for free treatment. But, no cure is sought or considered.

Here's my question to you GoodJanetBadJanet, what do you think is the cause of gender dysphoria?

And can I ask for a decent, genuine answer, not some ideological waffle.

I really do think the trans community and trans activists need to stick to a narrative about what being trans actually IS, because at the moment there are two very different, conflicting stories. For contrast, I don't remember any gay rights activists claiming that being gay was an illness or condition that required treatment: it was always an innate identity.

On the one hand, being trans is a dire health emergency requiring immediate treatment lest the poor individual kill themselves or live a life of abject misery trapped in the wrong body. So urgent is this medical need that children need to be treated as soon as possible in order to prevent the agony of going through the wrong puberty. Gender dysphoria is represented as torture, an unbearable state of being, which renders trans people one of the most vulnerable minorities and prone to catastrophic mental health problems. Trans activists demand better medical treatment, including more clinics, quicker diagnoses, informed consent models, free surgeries, hormone treatments for children, free hair removal etc.

On the other hand, being trans is an identity, a core part of one's being, which is a cause for celebration. Trans people are like gay people. Being trans is something which is part of the fabric of humanity, something to be accepted and cherished. Being trans is a source of great pride and strength, and isn't a mental illness or any illness at all. Trans people are perfect just the way they are, and don't need invasive medical procedures or sterilisation. The medical model should be moved away from towards a self identification model.

The problem is that trans activists switch between both paradigms when it suits them, and it leads to confusion. Joyce was discussing trans in the context of the first model, in which it is a serious medical condition but is being attacked by people who are assuming being trans is more like model two.

Well, this is the crux, Janet.

Does being 'part of who they are' mean having a brain in the 'wrong' body?

Isn't that brain (or body) just 'part of who they are'?

Either dysphoria is so terrible people require serious, life-altering treatment for it, or it's just fine, no big deal, 'part of who they are' and absolutely no changes are needed. Which means; No GRA, no meds, no surgery, no worries about being correctly sexed, etc.

At some point, someone is going to have to decide which it is.

I can understand dysphoria, as a rare and difficult condition, and that medical 'transition' is a crude attempt to try and alleviate the distress.

But you can't both have the idea of trans as a condition driven by dysphoria and have the idea of trans as just a personality aspect that has no impact on anyone. A lovely, affirmative rainbow of choices that people can make at any time like a gender pick n mix.

I mean, you can have the latter, but you can't ask the NHS to provide treatment for 'part of who they are' - the NHS don't offer hair dye, false breasts and shoe shopping as treatments for people's personality choices or passing sexual predilections.

Either trans is a condition driven by dysphoria (and therefore dysphoria needs to be treated, or 'cured'), or its an inconsequential personal choice based on an inner feeling or gendered soul (which of course doesn't need to be treated or 'cured').

Which do you say it is, Janet?

Well if they want to transition and aren’t reliant on external validation, or intervention of public health services, or changes to law affecting others, then yes it’s none of our business. But that doesn’t seem to be the case does it? So it’s everyone’s business.

Do you believe that people should be able to have any medical treatments they want?

What about transabled people who want to be disabled?

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/

This seems to be the closest analogy to transgender people, and some people, like Chloe Jennings-White, are both.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/body-integrity-identity-disorder-disabled-woman-chloe-jennings-white_n_3609392.html

Not necessarily and if they fund that themselves, that isn’t a good enough reason to object to people living whatever lives they want.

Yes, obviously people should be able to change their bodies however they want if they fund it themselves. No argument there. So are we saying the NHS shouldn't cover any of it?

many people who ID as trans say they feel better post-transition and if they believe that, I have no desire to stop them doing something they think will help them. It’s simply none of my business.
This

that they don't see themselves as being ill, as needing a cure, it's just part of who they are?

I genuinely don't get this. Surely all the fuss is because who they are is who they aren't?

All the cross sex hormones, entering spaces designed for the opposite sex, all the changes in laws to permit changes to official documentation, the need to get everyone and their dog to pretend that they are the opposite, removal of healthy body parts and reconstruction of fake genitalia; doesn't seem to show any evidence that 'it's part of who they are'.

Gay people do not require lifelong medical treatment simply for being gay. To be their "authentic self" a person who identifies as trans does require lifelong medical treatment.

Not necessarily and if they fund that themselves, that isn’t a good enough reason to object to people living whatever lives they want. Lots of people need lifelong medical care, some due to actions within their control. We live in one of the richest countries in the world - provision of medical care is manageable. Someone else needing medical care isn’t enough of a reason to stop them from doing something they want to do. I am gender critical, I don’t believe people can change sex, I want women’s spaces protected and I believe sex is a material reality (before someone says I am a TRA). However, many people who ID as trans say they feel better post-transition and if they believe that, I have no desire to stop them doing something they think will help them. It’s simply none of my business.

Perhaps when Janet says 'trans' she means transvestite.

Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?

This has been said many times, but obviously bears repeating.

Gay people do not require lifelong medical treatment simply for being gay. To be their "authentic self" a person who identifies as trans does require lifelong medical treatment.

The fact that the medical treatment that trans identified people "need" harms them physically just makes it even more apparent that this is not a safe ideology to buy into.

‘Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?
No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?’

Right, but again this gets back to the core issue: what is being trans? I know what being gay is.

But if being trans is best understood as a mental health issue (we know being gay isn’t) then talking about alleviation of the difficult feelings rather than a physical redrawing of the body (which carries profound health risks) isn’t anything like suggesting a cure for homosexuality. And if it isn’t best understood like that, fine, but it would be helpful if someone could explain why not.

Cure for gender dysphoria, Janet, not a cure for trans. Or are you saying you can only be trans if you have gender dysphoria? 🧐

Then they don't need any treatment, do they, if they are fine as they are.

Why do trans people need special 'trans healthcare' like mastectomies, hormones and genital surgery if they're not unwell? Is it just cosmetic?

"I've asked quite a few trans people/activists whether they would like to see a cure for gender dysphoria.
I can readily believe that that is because the number of people who have genuine gender dysphoria is minuscule.
Or have you ever thought that instead of c ming to the conclusion that people who are trans must be. a miniscule number because they haven't answered yes to your '' would you like to e cured" question 🙄 that they don't see themselves as being ill, as needing a cure, it's just part of who they are?
Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?
No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?

The treatment has to be in the shape of things like the grimly euphemistic 'titty skittles'.

Or #yeettheteets. Or even 'top/bottom surgery'.

Why the need to sugar coat this stuff?

Gender dysphoria is so dreadful, that a liberal sprinkling of egg shells needs to proceed your every step when you're around it. But a cure? Nah, you're alright.

And this.

None of it makes sense!

Nailed it.

Well said!!

Yes exactly, people who subscribe to gender identity ideology find this offensive because they believe there is a cultural thing called transness which is something which should be celebrated. Fine, but it's being conflated with something a lot of people view as a psychological condition, gender dysphoria which for genuine sufferers seems to be seriously distressing and operate like other body dysmorphia issues.