So disgusted tonight

‘Expanding the bandwidth of genocide, is it?’

Genocide is now any form of perceived oppression (obviously, no, it isn’t).

It would be like creating deaf people from a form of treatment that was still in experimental stages for the group it was being used on.

The entire point is that medically treating people with healthy bodies with drugs and surgeries leaves them with bodies that are, to put it bluntly, 'damaged' and then require further treatment and drugs throughout their life.

And the number of detransitioners is unknown, studies to discover the numbers have been closed down, but the number seems to be growing.

There is a longitudinal study from across Europe that shows there was 8+% of transitioners (both male and female) who detransitioned after medical treatment. This study was not about detransition, it was actually about studying some other aspect of their lives, but the numbers were there. And are never discussed by any activists.

Other studies have also shown similar number. And these were studies from before the bump of young female transitioners who have now, finally, been recognised as having significantly different needs. But are still be treated using the same protocols....

Or are we to continue to deny that lifelong patients are being created with these treatments?

Expanding the bandwidth of genocide, is it?

How utterly revolting.

@NecessaryScene that’s a very good analysis of the possible analogies.

The latest salvo in this argument on Twitter is that Joyce was definitely calling for genocide because genocide doesn’t have to be murder, it can be other things.

This is what happens when you start acting like you can redefine words at will.

Genocide has a clear meaning: it means the deliberate mass murder of an ethnic, racial or cultural group.

It doesn’t mean other things.

A better comparison might be saying ‘the world would be better without deaf people’ - few of those who can hear would choose to have been born deaf, but many deaf people value their strong community and particular perspective on the world and would not choose to have been born otherwise. Down syndrome is another example.

Yes, that's a stronger example. But the difference is that we are actively performing surgery on people or messing with their hormone system. This isn't an accident of birth, it is a deliberate action to impair someone. We are creating iatrogenic disease.

So it's not just about "screening against some naturally-occurring condition", which I agree is greyer ethical area, with something of a slippery slope.

The comparison would be better with - "should we be deliberately creating deaf people or people with Down's syndrome?" I believe there was a case where a deaf couple wanted to genetically screen their child to ensure it was deaf? It's something like that, but more precisely like choosing to deafen a child because it doesn't feel it fits in with hearing people.

I don't know what the current law looks like on medical providers blinding, deafening or amputating healthy people. I'd hope regulation is quite tight, to say the least.

Now, the direct harm for "transition" is less, being more in terms of long-term health impact and potential ongoing complications, and loss of sexual reproductive function, rather than an immediate and obvious reduction in day-to-day capabilities and quality of life. So maybe it can be laxer than those examples. But it should absolutely be taken more seriously than many seem to. ("Yeet the teats"? "Titty skittles"?)

And this is exactly the debate we should be having. What are the ethics of transition, and how does it compare with other procedures?

*Getting a sexual thrill from wearing women's clothes and fantasising about yourself as a woman is a normal variation of male behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

And, in case Fieldofgreycorn isn't aware, it's a cornerstone of Feminism to unpick why women's oppression gives men orgasms.

Wanting to not be limited by society's conception of what it is to be a woman is a normal variation of female behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

And again, Fieldofgreycorn feminism was created to deal with women's second place in society.

(that was a quote from the wiki page on sworn virgins)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins

On further investigation, in Samoa 'Same-sex sexual acts are illegal, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, but the law is not enforced.' 'Samoan society tends to be very tolerant of being transgender, but not of homosexuality' en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTrightsin_Samoa

Fabulous piece of 'evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world', thanks @Fieldofgreycorn , always good to remind ourselves of exactly what this evidence shows.

It is also likely that many women chose to become sworn virgins simply because it afforded them much more freedom than would otherwise have been available in a patrilineal culture in which women were secluded, sex-segregated, required to be virgins before marriage and faithful afterwards, betrothed as children and married by sale without their consent, continually bearing and raising children, constantly physically labouring, and always required to defer to men, particularly their husbands and fathers, and submit to being beaten

No shit, I think I would go for that too if the choice was that stark.

How sad. We had just got to the point where women were starting to be able to make choices liberated from this type of oppressive expectation/tradition. It's like society just struggles with the idea of women really genuinely being empowered/liberated, doesn't it? If we reject being subjugated or treated like slaves or second class citizens then we must be men!

What are you talking about? Cross sex identity? What, specifically, are you talking about?

Well, historically, often that has meant homosexuality. Because that is the clearest sexed behaviour. So many of those "trans" people in other cultures (like the trans kids in ours) were mainly just gay.

Still not a good idea to put gay men in women's prisons or sports, even if you acknowledge that "cross sex identity", and as LK1972 notes, historical cultures more advanced than the 21st-century USA figured that out.

But this is a suggestion that there's something else - something intangible that can be possessed by ordinary heterosexual males that has no detectable impact on behaviour compared to others of their sex - and that somehow links them to the other sex? Um, no...

Getting a sexual thrill from wearing women's clothes and fantasising about yourself as a woman is a normal variation of male behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

Wanting to not be limited by society's conception of what it is to be a woman is a normal variation of female behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

Neither of those should lead to surgical intervention. Just as it hasn't in time and cultures all over the world.

A better comparison might be saying ‘the world would be better without deaf people’ - few of those who can hear would choose to have been born deaf, but many deaf people value their strong community and particular perspective on the world and would not choose to have been born otherwise. Down syndrome is another example.

Surely it is for people in the affected group to say whether it would have been better for them not to have existed, or to have existed differently?

Interestingly, 'Faʻafafine have sexual relationships exclusively with men who do not identify as faʻafafine.' To me, that is not a proof of trans identity, but a socially acceptable way to be homosexual. And we're still seeing this tendency in our society, according to Tavi whistle blowers

‘Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.’

I agree that it’s a variation of behaviour, but not biology. An identity claim isn’t a fact. Nobody else is obligated to accept it. And Joyce is entitled to say she thinks physical transition causes harm if that’s what she thinks.

Sorry, Fa'afafine

In fact, every single 'proof' of 'trans' people through history is a societally-approved ways of escaping over rigid gender roles. In none of them the equivalence is total. Hijra are not really treated as women, and Thai ladyboys fight men, not women, in martial arts. The Fa'ahafine also compete against men, and in fact it were the Pacific Islanders who were particularly outraged by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard in women's category.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

Like nailing blancmange to the ceiling.

Just when you think you have got it, it changes, wiggles away from you.

What are you talking about? Cross sex identity? What, specifically, are you talking about?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

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

Yeah, this cross sex identity of Sworn virgins is totally normal and fully applicable to our society, when we will have this:'Women are treated like property of the family. Under the Kanun, women are stripped of many rights. They cannot smoke, wear a watch, or vote in local elections. They cannot buy land, and there are many jobs they are not permitted to hold. There are also establishments that they cannot enter.'

But they were definitely trans, right?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour

They used to give Lupron to 'homosexuals' to castrate them...and now the same organisations who got this stopped are the ones...promoting its use on kids.

Queen Victoria would not admit the existence of lesbians because she thought it wasn't possible to not want the penis. And now, progessives take the exact same approach. Indeed, Stonewall hired the man who used to run those workshops designed to strategise on how to get lesbians to accept the all new modern lady penis.

I do not think that we should use history to justify castrating kids personally. Surely things have moved on?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

Are you talking about intersex conditions? Because intersex people have repeatedly asked people to refrain from using them as a 'gotcha' in relation to trans issues, which are entirely unrelated to them.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

What is a cross sex identity??

Honestly, the twittishness of this!!

Do you mean men wearing pink?

I'm sorry to possibly derail, but it always bemuses me when indigenous traditions allowing for the switch of gender roles are used as a proof of historical existence of trans people. I've double checked my memory on Balkan Sworn Virgins, and nowhere does it mention that they became the sworn virgins because they actually thought they were men/were confused about their sex. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanianswornn_virgins

However, the article above aptly demonstrates the conditions under which women are forced to live as men to be allowed basic freedoms.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. Just as there are variations in sexuality. It’s not the same as Thalidomide, or lobotomies or Scientology or slavery or car accidents.

Why are you talking about "cross sex identity"? Joyce wasn't. Why would she? She was talking about people undergoing physical transition.

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".

But seriously, would you object if someone said the world would be better without religion?

Would you object if someone said the world would be better without Christian’s or xxxxxxx?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. Just as there are variations in sexuality. It’s not the same as Thalidomide, or lobotomies or Scientology or slavery or car accidents.