So disgusted tonight

It is the same as lobotomies when people are getting their bodies cut up and medicalised in the attempt to create some sort of resemblance to the other sex. And it doesn't solve their problem because they remain the sex they wished to escape. Only now they are damaged, and may no longer be able to function as their sex.

but they're fixing physical problems, not modifying healthy bodies.

FFS. How many times does this need to be said?

And around and around we go.

That word is being redefined quite seperatly to all of this, I'm afraid.

No, there are some cultures where there are categories that allow some people who are of a certain sex to behave according to some, but generally not all, the social conventions of the other sex.

In every case these are cultures where there are some or many fairly strict behavioral taboos about cross sex behaviour. Often homosexuality is one of them - the logic of the society being that men can't have sex with men, so if that is going on at least some of the participants aren't seen as men in the normal way, and can't play all the social roles of men or have the kinds of social status of men. It can also apply to men doing work normally given to women. Though they also normally have a lot more freedom, particularly sexually, than women.

There is only one society with such a role for women to live as men, where there happens to sometimes be a lack of males to lead. In that case, rather than having more freedoms, they have fewer than biological men, in particular they can't marry and have children.

These aren't roles people take on due to some kind of innate gender identity. They are ways a society may deal with certain ideas about proper male and female behaviour. They aren't always roles entered into willingly by the individuals either. Sometimes it is the only way for a person to get out of a sexual role that is unwanted, or it may be required by the comminity in order to make of for a sex imbalance.

This has nothing to do with gender identity theory in the west.

It's so difficult to discuss concepts we cannot define such as gender identity. I know I don't have one if it is supposed to be an abstract feeling of being 'feminine'. So whose definitions should the conversations use?

And how does gender dysphoria differ from body dysmorphia? Can we be certain that gender dysphoria is always caused by transgender identity? Could it sometimes be a misdiagnosis of something that is trauma based, say?

As I wrote, it's hard for me to comprehend "a deep conviction that one should be the opposite physical sex".

I am not at all certain that the me which I would interpret as the innermost part of my sense of self even has a sex. I am just a person who happens to be told, by my body, and by the wider world (sometimes in unpleasant terms) that I am a female person.

I am certain that there are individuals for whom medical and/or surgical steps bring relief from gender dysphoria.

But I am unaware of general scientific evidence that this would be helpful, in general, and I am concerned about the extremely large and rapid increases in teens who wish to transition, especially as in the past most in that group were boys while now many more girls present themselves in that group than never in the past.

The often used comparison to being left-handed doesn't really work, because the percentage increases in a decade are truly enormous, in thousands of percentages, while the group of those who said that they are left-handed rose from 4 to 12 %, roughly, over about seven decades when the stigma attached to it was removed.

The way I understood what Helen Joyce was saying has to do with these questions, i.e., how do we make certain that we correctly diagnose those children who indeed are transgender, and how do we find the best modalities for their care over the long run?

If we rely on the child's self-diagnosis alone, how many people get the wrong medical treatment and what are the costs of that wrong medical treatment in the long run?

It also matters to ask what the consequences would be for doing it wrong in the other direction, of course. We really need a much better way of diagnosing gender dysphoria and of properly treating all co-morbidities and of assessing the child's overall social etc. situation.

If it's not a condition that can be ascertained via a diagnosis by a relevant medical practitioner and provable by objective medical tests or by a psychiatric practitioner after relevant psychiatric assessment, why is healthcare necessary? The NHS can't give treatment in the absence of any professional diagnosis. Surely, here, you are talking about cosmetic procedures to fulfill the subjective desires of that "deep conviction"?

We now fix many things with surgery that want available 1000 years ago.

Right, but they're fixing physical problems, not modifying healthy bodies.

I can't immediately think of any other examples of claimed surgical "fixes" for non-physical problems. If you can, please go ahead.

Best I can do is cosmetic stuff like breast implants and nose jobs, which might make some people feel better about themselves. Don't think we should be promoting that in schools though, or letting children do it.

A deep conviction that one should be the opposite physical sex.

Okay, yes, men can have that. But women don't have a deep conviction that they "should be female", any more than men have a deep conviction that they "should be male".

A deep conviction that one should be female is a uniquely male condition, and not something that such men have in common with women.

We're not denying that some men can feel like that - lots clearly do. We're just pointing out that it's got nothing to do with actual women, any more than people feeling like they're wolves has anything to do with actual wolves.

We should only fix with surgery where we have a known problem and we know the surgery will help

Its historically very rare for someone to have gender dismorphia long lasting and having detrimental impact on someone's life

That is very different to a child struggling with natural changes and a gender restrictive society

it's very different to gender none conforming style senses and personality and a misogynistic outlook to life

but at the moment it's all bundled together and needs teasing out - not a sweeping over simplistic mantra

🤣

"Who do they think they are kidding..."

Yes, there may be evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. But did they subject them to surgery to try to "fix" them? We are proposing we should not be trying to surgically correct someone's "identity".

We now fix many things with surgery that want available 1000 years ago. It’s a spectrum of identity with a corresponding spectrum of dysphoria.

Explain what 'cross sex identity' means with absolutely no reference at all to stereotypes.

A deep conviction that one should be the opposite physical sex. Functioning better psychologically, socially, occupationally and sexually when medical and/ or surgical steps are taken to alter secondary and sometimes primary sex characteristics to resemble as closely as possible that sex.

How this situation developed:
Video live streamed on Wednesday 25 May 2022.

Thousands of people view it at the time and in the following week. There are no public reactions to it other than approval of the discussion.

Thursday 2 June 2022 at 5.31 pm: on Twitter, Person A tweets "Reasonable crowd strikes again" and includes a very short transcript from the video.

Thursday 2 June 2022 at 7.38 pm: on Twitter, Person B tweets a link to an edited clip of just over one minute from the hour long video:

"My blood is boiling.
Soooo fucking much!
The absolute fucking arrogance, of these two braindead dickheads, spelling out the fascistic solution to trans people exhibiting natural human diversity, is sick, twisted, perverted, and beyond callous and evil!
I don't have the words..."

Thursday 2 June 2022 at 7.48 pm: on Twitter, [10 minutes after Person B's tweet] Person C tweets a link to the edited clip:

"Helen Joyce blatantly saying her aim is to stop people transitioning as 'every one is a difficulty'."

Thursday 2 June 2022 at 10.32 pm: on Twitter, Person A tweets again with a link to the whole video with his own version of transcript:

"“We have to limit the harm [which requires] keeping down the number of people who transition. Every one of these people is a person who has been damaged. The fewer of these people there are, the better” (Helen Joyce 25/5/22)."

Friday 3 June at 3.32 pm: on Twitter, Person A tweets again with a link to the whole video:

"The mask is well and truly off at 4.55 - 5.58 mins.
But also at 1:04:55 mins: "A lot of religions have child sacrifice and here we have one (the trans movement).""

Thereafter, from 3 June 2022 someone from Stonewall comments, as does someone who writes for the Guardian, and Pink News writes a web page.

So, one person kicked it off [Person A] another amplifies it, but with an edited clip of 1 minute 26 seconds that presents a distortion from an hour long chat [Person B], followed by another who amplifies that distortion [Person C].

I think Alex Sharpe was (is?) a door tenant at GCC, whatever that means. So not directly part of the chambers but was referenced in evidence as influential by the trans working group's members.

Questionable Pole Exercise?

Oh how closely we are being Monitored, again!

Don't make 'em look bad, Pike!

NOBODY PANIC.

Reporting what actually happened with time stamps - not in the spirit of the debate about the thing that happened when the people actually did what was listed in the deleted post.

DON'T TELL EM PIKE.

No fucking way!!!

so was Alex a member of the LGBT action group, or whatever it was called? Crikey.

Alex Sharpe has written a whole book on 'gender fraud' (or 'sex by deception')

www.amazon.co.uk/Sexual-Intimacy-Gender-Identity-Fraud/dp/1138502553

is that the same Alex Sharpe who is part of Garden court Chambers?

Oh! Tis too!

@Datun "Is that the same Alex Sharpe who is part of Garden court Chambers?"

Yes.

I believe he also featured in Allison Bailey's tribunal, although not called as a witness.

Indeed. It's such a revealing question.

Who, in their right mind, would ever say yes.

is that the same Alex Sharpe who is part of Garden court Chambers?

Is this the Twitter version that confers a level of grandiosity on the Tweeter In Question (aka TIQ) that exceeds Louis XIV's "L'état c'est moi?" or just standard male perception of their own entitlement for a single claim to be accepted uncritically and no thought to fact-checking.

It does say something, however, of how unplugged some Tweeters must be from the networks over which they imply dominion.