Would you consider me transphobic?

[TheSkyisAlive]

First of all I believe that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and should not be treated with hormones and surgery. Having said that, it's their body and their choice and if that's what a person wants, they shouldn't face abuse or live in fear.

But just because you identify as a female does not mean you are one. Even after surgery.

You do not understand what it is like to be a female and the problems we face. You do not get to speak on behalf of women. You should not compete in female only sports.

Does that make me transphobic or simply someone who does not want the females to be second class citizens?

FarFrom

Precisely. Why don't other people see this? I wonder how many gender fluid kids are going to end up having unnecessary surgery as a result of where these discussions are going.

And cis women are going to end up suffering if they don't match societal expectations of what women should look like. I am fairly masculine looking. Do i need to start wearing make up so i can use women's bathrooms if i don't want people to challenge me?

Brave new times for us cis women.

That said, I am relieved that the Memorandum of Understanding refers therapists to the British Association of Psychologists, rather than the British Association of Counselling Professionals and their peculiar views on gender identity counselling, for example:

"The sex of a baby is medically assigned on the basis of the length of the clitoris/penis."

and

"Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance. However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

kesstrel

I am confused. Why shouldn't i use the aap? We used all their drug contraindications etc at LLL. They are a very well respected body of professionals with relevant backgrounds. I am confused why anyone would link to Transgender Trend.

Having a general discussion about a generally occurring phenomon, attitude, or pattern of behaviour that you think is questionable or derives from questionable background prejudices/factors, and that cause people to needlesly miss out on relationships/sex etc, is a different beast.

The way you describe homosexuality, as a 'phenomenon', comes across as though you think it's some sort of questionable thing? People can be gay, do you accept that? Unquestionably, undeniably, unassailably gay. They will never seek or desire sex with the opposite sex.

And "needlessly miss out on relationships"?

Nobody - NOBODY is entitled to sex with another person, it is not a right, nor is it any one individual's responsibility to sacrifice their own boundaries or comfort to provide it.

No, OP, you're not transphobic (by any rational definition of that word). I honestly don't know whether gender dysphoria should be considered a psychiatric diagnosis or not. I do believe that it causes considerable psychological discomfort and distress to those who experience gender dysphoric thoughts and emotions.

People in society experience distressing thoughts and feelings for all sorts of reasons. In some cases, it is considered appropriate to reinforce those thoughts and feelings; you wouldn't tell someone who has been violently attacked that it is not reasonable to feel scared of or angry at their attacker. But it is false logic to assume that reinforcing psychologically distressing thoughts and feelings is automatically in an individual's best interests, no matter what the scenario.

Plenty of people (men and women) experience psychological distress because of low self-esteem. Would a counsellor tell someone with low self-esteem that they feel like they are worthless because, in fact, their feelings are correct and they are worthless? Would a counsellor tell someone with low self-esteem that in order to "be true to themselves" they need to accept that they are genuinely worthless, need to present to the world as a worthless person, should encourage others to treat them badly? Or would a counsellor try to explore why someone with low self-esteem feels negatively about themselves and try to help them to achieve more positive ways of thinking about themselves?

Plenty of people (men and women) experience anxiety in social situations. Would the average MNer tell someone with social anxiety that the reason they feel anxious in social situations is because their feelings are correct, and other people are in fact scary and bad things will happen if they socialise with others? Would the average MNer tell someone with social anxiety that in order to "live authentically", they need to avoid all social contact with other people? Or would most MNers try to understand the root cause of the person's social anxiety, and perhaps suggest ways the person might be able to reduce psychological distress when interacting with others?

It is possible to validate someone's right to have their own thoughts and feelings without being obliged to accept those thoughts and feelings as objective truth.

This is not the first time JAPAB has expressed very troubling views about whether people are entitled to sexual boundaries and orientation, OkMaybeNot.

I remember, during a thread in July about the lesbian demonstration at London Pride, on the question of whether people have the right to exclude an entire class of people from their pool of potential partners, JAPAB wrote:

They do, but that right to do something does not entail the additional right to not be criticised for doing that something. Nor the right to stop other people talking about this stuff in general.

JAPAB made many posts reinforcing his belief on that thread comparing sexual orientation to racism or to being unwilling to date people with red hair.

I remember his arguments vividly because I found them so offensive and, to be frank, bizarre

He argues that people think they have an orientation or a preference but it's often just prejudice and others are entitled to judge people for having prejudices about who they want to have sex with.

However, as JAPAB also says only penetrative sex qualifies as sex at all, I'm not surprised he doesn't appear to think lesbian is in fact a valid sexual orientation.

I prefer the AAP statement by qualified professionals to something whipped up by - remind me again who TT is and why we should listen to them?

The American Association of Pediatrics takes a radically different line to that of the NHS, Bigotbut. Its statement reflects the worst of American medicine, where ethics stand no chance against the almighty dollar.

To illustrate the very different standards in the two countries, girls as young as 13 are being given double mastectomies in the USA. Link here.

The statement you endorse speaks approvingly of drug and surgery treatment for paediatric patients.

It also promotes dishonest suicide stats, which I have found a very reliable way of identifying which groups to trust in this area.

If they're lying about suicide they're lying about everything.

As for why go to Transgender Trend? Because both Mermaids and Allsorts make recommendations that are not in the best interests of gender dysphoric and GNC children.

The advice given by Allsorts directly contradicts established safeguarding standards.

As for Mermaids, it appalls me that official bodies and even the government are taking advice from a woman with the history of Susie Green, CEO of Mermaids. She should be in jail.

OkMaybeNot The way you describe homosexuality, as a 'phenomenon', comes across as though you think it's some sort of questionable thing?

I didn't say homosexuality was a phenomenon particularly. I referred to the phenomenon of people who are gay or bi excluding members of the same sex from their dating pools.

We both agree that people can be straight, gay or lesbian, and we have agreed that for most of the people who ID this way, that means 'biological males or females only'.

Nobody - NOBODY is entitled to sex with another person, it is not a right, nor is it any one individual's responsibility to sacrifice their own boundaries or comfort to provide it.

Yes I agree. But this is were I feel some people try to reduce a complex issue into 'headline' terms. Nobody has the right to have sex outside of marriage but can we not agree that it was a bit of a shame that in decades gone by so many people needlessly missed out on sex due to 'social conditioning'? Can we not understand why some people wanted to talk about this, question it etc?

A gay person does not have a right to sleep with another gay person or date them, but can we not agree that it is a shame if a lot of gay or bi people are not dating/sleeping with members of the same sex because of social conditioning and prejudice?

It is not about "rights" it is about some people just thinking that if people are needlesly missing out on relationships/sex then there is something wrong with this picture.

Of course in any one example you or I might agree that there was something wrong with this picture, but not in others. We have our beliefs others have theirs.

My original point is that someone is not homophobic or some other pejorative label, just because they think there is prejudice or conditioning happening where you think it isn't.

Prawnofthepatriarchy JAPAB made many posts reinforcing his belief on that thread comparing sexual orientation to racism or to being unwilling to date people with red hair.

No I didn't. They were brought in to illustrate different points. The ginger one for example, was just to demonstrate how some people were twisting what was being said into something else and to mean something other than what it did. A point you have just demonstrated once again :)

But whether a lesbian finds a male who identifies as a woman sexually attractive or not has nothing to do with social conditioning. I don't understand how you're arriving at that.

Please, explain. I am utterly baffled.

girls as young as 13 are being given double mastectomies in the USA.

Just when you think you can't fucking peak any more. That's absolutely barbaric. Anyone who defends this cult is culpable for this for making it socially acceptable to operate on and medicate physically healthy young children because they don't fit society's view of what a boy or a girl should be. Do what you want to yourself when you're an adult. But these are children for fucks sake.

But whether a lesbian finds a male who identifies as a woman sexually attractive or not has nothing to do with social conditioning.

Obviously, a lesbian is just someone who has been conditioned by society to believe that they are attracted to other women. It has nothing to do with their innate nature. If only they would sleep with men, they would be able to undo their social conditioning.

Straight from the Rapey Riley Playbook.

No, you are simply coming from a position of common sense.

OkMaybeNot But whether a lesbian finds a male who identifies as a woman sexually attractive or not has nothing to do with social conditioning.

Depends on the lesbian surely. I agree that most people who ID as straight/gay/lesbian are attracted to one reproductive type of human only. But that leaves others for whom this is not the case. You have even acknowledged the existence of homosexuals who date the trans subset of men/women, whichever they are interested in.

I think it is possible for all sorts of people to have nothing written into their DNA to say that they cannot find a class of people attractive, but external influences play a part. Racism or xenophobia can play a part in how you perceive the relevant people. I reckon it is possible that you can have females who are bi in orientation but misandry and man-hating puts them off men. And of course you can have people who are gay or bi but who haven't realised it. I once met a gay man who said that it took him seven years to work out that he was gay. I will admit I cannot quite get why it would take so long, but then what would I know. I am not a homo or bisexual who grew up in a heteronormative society.

Well anyway, I think it is possible, as I say, for people to get stifled or repressed or turned off due to prejudice, preconception, conditioning, fear or discomfort with the unknown, and so on, without them having anything written into their very genetic code to say that they cannot find that class of people attractive.

Do you disagree?

Obviously, a lesbian is just someone who has been conditioned by society to believe that they are attracted to other women. It has nothing to do with their innate nature. If only they would sleep with men, they would be able to undo their social conditioning.

Straight from the Rapey Riley Playbook.

and there's that misrepresentation, reductionism, spin and hyperbole. And which only occurs when you personally do not believe there is anything wrong with the picture.

Pick a different example of a different dating or sexual exclusion (whether current or historical) where this time you personally believe that there was something wrong with that pictures and the reasons/factors/influences behind it, and then the people truing to talk about this do not find themselves on the receiving end if such rhetorical spin and misrepresentation such as the above. Because this time you agree with them.

Yep. JAPAB's newer posts are just as incomprehensible and nonsensical as his older posts.

At least they're consistent in their shiteness, if nothing else.

Exactly so, DisrespectfulAdultFemale. I'm going to ignore them unless or until I see a teaching moment.

Lurkers, always the lurkers...

I just realised that JAPAB is the same poster who argued that archaeologists wouldn't be able to tell the difference between male and female children's skeletons when I asked if archaeologists would be able to tell the difference between women's and transwomen's skeletons.

Same old bullshit.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale don't remember arguing that. Don't even agree with it. Bones contain no information about gender. You might infer that the person was biologically male or female, but that is it.

JAPAB is right there. Pelvis, obv, tends to give it away, but if you just had a skull, for example, you would be guessing. It's not as obvious as most people think, esp as you're normally working with numbers that are based on averages in certain kinds of populations, but might not hold true for others.

I work with bones in my day job, and have had to try and guess at sex before and it's not as obvious as a lot of folk think. Sorry. Total tangent, I know.

Sorry for continuing the tangent but if you needed to know the sex of the skeleton wouldn't you extract DNA?

Alaaya, the original conversation was about adult skeletons, not isolated bones. Everything I have read points to archaeologists and forensic anthropologists being able to tell the difference between adult male and female skeletons.

So, extracting DNA isn't always possible with old bones, and, of course, it does involve destroying the material you extract the DNA from - normally an amount of material equivalent to a single tooth, so some curators/conservators will be unhappy at multiple attempts to get DNA in my experience. But yeah, DNA would show, of course.

Re- indeterminate skeletal remains, if Disrespectful is genuinely interested in forensic archaeology, then there's some interesting stuff out there. A quick google threw up this - www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2015/908535/ - which probably gives a better idea of the kind of complexities out there than I'm going to manage in a MN comment. But this isn't really anything to do with trans stuff.

Well if that's what transphobic is, then I'm a transphobic

Having a general discussion about a generally occurring phenomon, attitude, or pattern of behaviour that you think is questionable or derives from questionable background prejudices/factors, and that cause people to needlesly miss out on relationships/sex etc, is a different beast.

This is just homosexual conversion therapy repackaged for a new generation. And "causing people to needlessly miss out on relationships/sex"? That's incel logic!